PROCEEDINGS, Thirty-Seventh Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering

Stanford University, Stanford, California, January 30 - February 1, 2012

SGP-TR-194

Thermal and Structural Analysis of the Casing in a

High Temperature Geothermal Well During Discharge
Gunnar Sklason Kaldal1*, Magns . Jnsson1, Halldr Plsson1, Sigrn N. Karlsdttir2
1

Faculty of Industrial Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Iceland,
Hjararhagi 2-6,
Reykjavik, 107, Iceland
2
Innovation Center Iceland, Department of Materials, Biotechnology and Energy, Keldnaholt, Reykjavik, 112,
Iceland
*e-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT
During the discharge of high temperature geothermal
wells, the temperature difference in the well from
non-flowing to flowing conditions is in the range of
couple of hundreds of degrees centigrade and the
pressure fluctuation is also large. The wellhead rises
due to thermal expansion of the casing and the
wellbore pressure, in some cases excessively because
of concrete damage or poor cementing job.
Measurements of a particular high temperature well
were performed during discharge. Temperature and
pressure changes were measured at the wellhead as
well as the wellhead rise. A model was constructed
using the finite element method (FEM) and
computational results from the model were compared
to the measurements.
The results from the transient thermal FEM analysis
show a rapid temperature response in the concrete
layers of the well. In the concrete surrounding the
production casing the temperature rises to roughly
95% of thermal equilibrium in only few hours. The
coupling-concrete interactions in the FEM model
indicate that the concrete has a weak spot and is most
likely to get damaged at the coupling ends. The
results show that the rise of the wellhead is exclusive
to the uppermost 500 meters of the well but
displacements are negligible beneath.
INTRODUCTION
At the start of the discharge of high temperature
geothermal wells the geothermal fluid is abruptly
sucked out of the reservoir by the low pressure
conditions on the surface. This causes large pressure
fluctuations inside the wellbore as well as local flow
conditions, such as plug or slug flow, that causes
vibration that can easily be felt on the surface by an
observer and could be harmful for the casing. The
large temperature change in the well causes thermal

expansion of the casing, which in turn causes the

wellhead to rise.
Relatively few studies have been published on
structural finite-element (FEM) models of the casing
in geothermal wells. A 2D FEM model of the cross
section of a double cased geothermal well was
created by Philippacopoulos and Berndt (2002) in
order to represent the behavior of the cement/sealant,
where the results showed the inadequacy of
geothermal well design based solely on compressive
strength. A plane strain finite element model for well
failure due to formation movement and a three
dimensional model to analyze the local behavior of
the
casing-cement-formation
interaction
in
geothermal wells were developed also by
Philippacopoulos and Berndt (2000) where the results
revealed the importance of the cement properties on
the response of the casing patch cement included in
the three dimensional model.
Peng, Fu and Zhang (2007) created a FEM model to
represent oil-field casing failure in unconsolidated
formations where the results showed non-uniform
and multi-directional casing deformation. Theodorio
and Falcone (2008) presented a finite-element model
and experimental work to evaluate the low-cycle
fatigue (LCF) resistance of an 18-5/8 in diameter
casing with Buttress threaded connections. Their
results showed that under extreme loads the LCF
resistance of the connection could be as low as 10
cycles.
In a M.Sc. thesis by Magnsdttir (2009) a two
dimensional FEM model (as well as a three
dimensional buckling model) of a geothermal well
was constructed, where the upward displacement of
the wellhead was analyzed with regards to the
bonding characteristics between the production
casing and concrete. The results for full, partial and
no bonding between the surfaces, were compared and
showed how the defined connection behavior greatly
affected the results. Another M.Sc. thesis by lafsson
(2011) covers a structural analysis of a wellhead on a

high temperature geothermal well using a FEM

model where several load cases are analyzed with
regard to pressure and temperature loads. The load
history and buckling of the production casing was
covered by Kaldal (2011) where a section of a well
was analyzed with regards to local collapse of the
casing. The results showed increased stress in the
concrete around couplings indicating a potential risk
of local damage.
Wellhead movement can be an indicator of failures in
wells. Large wellhead movement for example could
indicate that the concrete between casings is
defective or damaged and could lead to serious
casing damage. The wellhead movement of a
"healthy" well can be a great contributor for the
calibration of structural models dealing with the
frictional interaction between steel casings and
concrete. Measurements of the wellhead movement
during discharge are therefore an excellent
contribution to structural modeling of geothermal
wells. Large wellhead movement can also be an
indicator of a potential risk of casing damage in the
well. Casing failures can cause a serious hazard of
leakage and blow out risk. For instance in an extreme
example from the 70s, the production casing of a well
in northern Iceland was in poor shape due to a highly
corrosive environment, eventually causing an
immense explosion that created a crater at the
wellhead location (Plmason 2005).
In this article the rise of the wellhead, during
discharge of high temperature geothermal wells, is
examined. A case study is presented of well HE-46 in
the Hellisheii high temperature geothermal area
located in south-west Iceland, where temperature,
pressure and wellhead movement measurements were
conducted during discharge. A transient axially
symmetric two dimensional thermal and structural
model of a geothermal well is presented.

unpractical but could be a subject for revisal in future

studies. Other material properties are defined
linearly.
The bonding characteristics between steel and
concrete are one of the reasons for the nonlinear
behavior of the model. In the model, all contacting
surfaces are defined using contact elements. Coulomb
friction is used to describe the bonding
characteristics, where a coefficient of friction and
maximum friction stress are defined. The maximum
friction stress controls when bonded contact changes
to sliding contact and relative sliding between
surfaces initiates.

FINITE-ELEMENT MODEL
The finite-element method (FEM) is used to construct
thermal and structural models of a high temperature
geothermal well from the wellhead to the bottom of
the production casing. It is a two-dimensional axially
symmetric model which includes nonlinearities in (i)
material properties, (ii) geometrical displacements
and (iii) connectivity between contacting surfaces
(contact elements).
The main nonlinear material properties that are used
are the stress-strain curves for K55, L80, T95 and
X56 steel at room temperature, obtained from tensile
strength tests by Karlsdottir (Karlsdttir 2009).
Strength reduction at elevated temperatures is
included for the steel in the model. For the concrete,
an approximation is made where a maximum
compressive strength is defined before it is assumed
to yield plastically. Defining a concrete material
model that behaves differently in compression and
tension for a model of this scale has proved to be

Figure 1: The geometry of the two dimensional axialsymmetric

finite-element
model.
Upper
magnification: simplified wellhead based on the
actual design. Lower magnification: simplified
coupling without threads.
The geometry of the model is shown in Figure 1. It is
a two dimensional model, axially symmetric around
the center of the well. It includes three casings at the
top; the production casing, the security casing and the
surface casing. The model reaches from the wellhead
to the shoe of the production casing, where it sits on
the rock formation which goes 20 meters deeper until
it reaches the lower boundary of the model. The
radial boundary of the rock formation goes 20 meters
outward, which showed to be sufficient for both the
thermal and the structural parts of the model.
Modeling wells that are drilled in sedimentary basins
or soft ground would probably require the outer

boundary to be larger, but in this model the formation

is assumed to be solid rock.
As can be seen from the geometry of the model, it's
diameter-to-depth ratio is very small, which requires
a large number of elements because the elements
must have proper width-to-length ratio to function
correctly. Although the geometry of the well can be
regarded as being simple in shape, the problem
becomes computationally complex due to; the large
number of elements and the numerous nonlinearities,
such as material nonlinearities, large displacement
nonlinearities, and the interaction between surfaces.
In the model the production casing has an outer
diameter of 13 3/8 in, thickness of 12.2 mm and is
700 m in length. Simplified couplings with no threads
are included in the model as can be seen on the lower
magnification in Figure 1. A simplified wellhead
based on an actual design is also included to see how
the casing and the wellhead interact. The wellhead is
welded to the security (anchor) casing as shown in
the upper magnification in Figure 1. The first flange
of the wellhead and the casing guidance gasket are
simplified into a solid piece which are included in the
model to see how the production casing slides inside
the wellhead. The model is further described in the
results chapter in connection with the results.
LOADS IN GEOTHERMAL WELLS
Casing design is generally based on axial tension and
compression, burst pressure and collapse pressure,
where axial tension is a measure of how much load
can lead to pipe body failures and coupling failures,
see diagram A in Figure 2. The internal yield
pressure (burst pressure) is the minimum internal
pressure that will cause a ductile rupture of the pipe
body and the collapse resistance of casings is the
minimum external pressure that will cause a collapse
of the casing, see B in Figure 2. Standards provide
equations and calculations for the properties of
casings for the oil and gas industry. They are
however lacking in calculations of high thermal
loads.
To understand what loads act on the casing it is
necessary to go through the load history of the
casing. During the installation of the production
casing, casing components are screwed together and
lowered down into the well one by one. If residual
stresses from the production of the casing are
neglected, the first load on the casing is tensional
force due to gravity, see diagram A in Figure 2.
While the casing is being installed, the well is kept
full of cold water, which provides a buoyant force.
The tensional force increases with increased depth,
putting the highest strain on the last installed casing
component that supports the whole casing before the
concrete sets. This load is however dependent on how
many centralizers are used and the diameter of the
hole.

Figure 2: Production casing loads.

During cementing, the casing experiences both burst
and collapse loads, i.e. the difference in internal
and/or external pressure. The concrete is pumped
through the drill string, the casing collar and shoe,
and up the annulus. The casing is full of water so the
pressure difference between the outer and inner wall
of the casing is determined by the difference in
density between concrete and water, normally about
1.6, see diagram B in Figure 2. When the slurry is
pumped in place the outer pressure on the casing
must not exceed the collapse resistance of the casing.
Pressure can build up for example because of a
blockage in the annulus which can lead to a casing
collapse. When the concrete is setting, heat of
hydration is released when cement comes in contact
with water because of the exothermic chemical
reaction in the cement (Portland Cement Association
1997). Temperature increases slightly as the concrete
cures, a temperature increase of 12C of a 300 mm
thick curing concrete have been recorded (Portland
Cement Association 1997). The annulus gap between
casing and formation is much thinner so this
temperature change can be considered small
compared to the temperature conditions in a nonflowing geothermal well. In addition, when the
cement has been placed and the cooling of the well is
stopped, the well heats up slowly due to the hot
surroundings.
When the concrete bonds with the steel and solidifies
the reference "zero" temperature of the casingconcrete is reached. After the bond between the
casing and concrete is made, the well heats up slowly
due to the surroundings, but this depends on the rock
formation, for example if there are hot fissures
present. When the production section of the well is
drilled cooling fluid or mud is used to cool the well
and provide circulation for transporting cuttings to
the surface. This is the first major cooling of the
casing resulting in its contraction. This leads to
tensional forces in the casing as the concrete

reactional forces are compressive, see diagram D in

Figure 2.
If wells do not perform properly the relationship
between the well and the geothermal reservoir needs
to be improved with stimulation methods. Most of the
methods involve injection of cold pressurized water.
A method where intermittent cold water injection is
used with periods of thermal recovery, is one of the
most common ones used for high temperature wells
in Iceland (Axelsson 2006). In this method cracking
is caused in the rock with thermal shocking. Cyclic
thermal loading and large temperature changes can
cause damage to the production casing and the
surrounding
concrete
due
to
thermal
expansion/contraction, see diagram C and D in
Figure 2. In a related method, pressurized water is
used to clean out and fracture already present
fissures. This cools down the well causing
contraction of the steel, see diagram D in Figure 2.
Damage to the casing can be avoided by using
inflatable packers, where the stimulation can be
focused on specific intervals in the well rather than
the whole open section (Axelsson 2006). In another
method acid is used to clean out fissures. The acid
must not come into direct contact with the steel
because of a possible corrosion risk. Recently, rocket
fuel was burned at a specified depth in a high
temperature geothermal well in Iceland to create a
shock wave which caused cracking in the rock
(Sigursson 2010). This method separates the
stimulation process from the well section above,
minimizing the load on the casing.
In order for a well to flow unassisted, the pressure in
the well needs to be higher than the atmospheric
pressure. The wellhead is usually kept closed for a
period of time in order to increase the pressure on the
wellhead.
Discharge methods are used if the flow in the well
does not start automatically when the well is opened.
In one method an air pump is used to build pressure
at the wellhead that pushes the water column down.
After a period of time the pressure is released and the
well discharges quickly. This causes a rapid
depressurization and temperature increase.
Three conceptual load cases, pre and post discharge
can be seen in Figure 3. In the figure to the left, a
schematic is shown of a non-flowing well with no top
pressure. The pressure (black line) is hydrostatic
below the water table which lies somewhere in the
well and the temperature (blue line) is low above the
water table.

Figure 3: Conceptual load cases before and after

discharge.
On the figure in the middle the well has either been
closed to gain pressure of non-condensable gases or a
pump is being used to increase the wellhead pressure.
In both cases the water table is pushed down in the
well, causing the temperature where the water table
was before to decrease. This state is held until the
wellhead pressure is enough for the well to be
discharged. On the last figure to the right, the
pressure and temperature conditions after discharge
can be seen. In the discharge the pressure uppermost
in the well decreases and the temperature increases
abruptly.
Another more advanced discharge method requires a
drill rig on site, where the flow is initiated with air
that is pumped through the drill-string creating air
bubbles that reduce the density of the water column
above, thus creating momentum. In this method,
increased temperature is the main load on the casing
and the pressure changes slowly from hydrostatic to
flow conditions. This method, however, is rarely used
due to increased cost.
After the well is discharged harmful dynamic flow
conditions, such as plug and slug flow, could result in
casing impairment. At the phase change where the
geothermal fluid boils, the flow becomes turbulent
and could cause local dynamic pressure changes and
cavitation, which can erode the casing.
CASE STUDY - MEASUREMENTS OF WELL
HE-46 IN HELLIHEII, ICELAND
Temperature, pressure and the rise of the wellhead
during discharge were measured at the wellhead on
well HE-46 which is located on the Hellisheii high
temperature geothermal area in south-west Iceland.
The well, drilled in the year of 2008, has a total depth
of 2444 meters with a production casing that reaches
down to 1032 meters. The wellhead of HE-46 can be
seen in Figure 4.
Air pump was used to build up pressure inside the
well for few weeks before discharge. On the day of
discharge the pump had built up a pressure of 37.5
bar-g (the discharge of the well was delayed for few
days due to a rare Icelandic thunderstorm). The well
was opened quickly, causing an abrupt discharge of
the steam rich geothermal media which was then
directed out to the silencer. A large pressure

200

150
Temperature [C]

fluctuation occurred at the beginning of the

discharge, the first 10 minutes of the discharge can be
seen in Figure 6. The pressure decreased rapidly to
7.0 bar-g and then rose to steady 19.5 bar-g. This
fluctuation and its influence on the casing could be
interesting to investigate further. The outer
temperature of the expansion spool rose steadily from
8C to 193C in 5 minutes, see Figure 5. The
temperature had reached 197C one day later.

100

50
Expansion spool
Upper flange
Lower flange
0

20

40

60
80
Time [minutes]

100

120

140

Figure 5: Measured wellhead temperature during

discharge (outer temperature of the expansion spool).
30

Pressure [bar-g]

25

20

15

10

The rise of the wellhead basement and the flange

above the expansion spool on the wellhead was
measured with an optical elevation meter and a laser.
Temperature was measured at several locations on
the wellhead; at the upper and lower flange of the
expansion spool and on the outer surface of the
expansion spool. Pressure was measured with a
pressure gauge located above the master valve.
The wellhead is restrained by three main features; the
concrete layers of the casings (the wellhead is an
extension of the second casing outward, the security
casing), a "spider" support which consists of four
bars in tension on top of the wellhead and four
centralizing bars in the wellhead basement. The total
rise of the wellhead during the observation can be
seen in Figure 7. Unfortunately, the measurement
period was to short to observe the final wellhead rise
but the wellhead was still rising at the end of the
measurement period. The sharp rise at the beginning
stages of the discharge is however interesting and
illustrates the substantial force due to the thermal
expansion of the casing.

4
6
Time [minutes]

10

Figure 6: Wellhead pressure during the first ten

minutes of discharge.
25

Upward displacement [mm]

Figure 4: The expansion spool and master valve of

the wellhead of well HE-46 (figure: Heimir
Hjartarson).

20

15

10

5
Flange
Basement
0

20

40

60
80
Time [minutes]

100

120

140

Figure 7: Wellhead rise; upper flange of the

expansion spool, wellhead basement.

Thermal calculations
One dimensional casing-concrete layer model
A one dimensional thermal model of the upper layers
of a high temperature geothermal well with a top
temperature of 200C, was constructed and timedependent analysis were performed to obtain
information on how fast the system reaches thermal
equilibrium. The well is assumed to have three
casings that are all cemented. The boundary
conditions at the outer boundary of the ground, which
is selected as 50 m from the center of the well, is set
to Tgr = 0C and at the inner wall of the production
casing is set to Tpr = 200C, assuming production
conditions uppermost in the well. The analysis is
time-dependant where the load is changed in a step to
simulate a well discharge.
200

190

The thermal response is calculated through a period

of 30 days. A steady-state analysis is performed in
comparison to the transient analysis to see when
thermal equilibrium is reached in the well casings
and in the surrounding ground, assuming constant
temperature conditions inside the well.
The results show that the thermal response in the
casings of the well is relatively fast, taking only few
hours to reach thermal equilibrium. But the thermal
gradient from the center of the well to outer layers is
still rather high, as can be seen by the temperature
difference in the concrete layers, i.e. the concrete
around the production casing, the security casing and
the surface casing, as well as the surrounding rock in
Figure 8 and Figure 9.
200
1 hour
6 hours
1 day
5 days
20 days
Steady-state

150

Temperature [C]

RESULTS

100

Temperature [C]

50

180
0

170

Production concrete
Security concrete
Surface concrete
0

10
15
time [hours]

20

Figure 8: Thermal response in the concrete layers of

the well.
140
120
100

Temperature [C]

2
4
6
8
Distance from well center [m]

10

Figure 10: Temperature distribution in the vicinity of

the well.

160

150

80
60
40
20
0

5 m from well
10 m from well
0

10
15
time [hours]

20

Figure 9: Thermal response in the surrounding rock,

5 and 10 meters from the well.

The temperature distribution in the vicinity of the

well at various points in time can be seen in Figure
10. The thermal gradient is still very steep 1 hour
after the beginning of the discharge and continually
drops over time until a thermal equilibrium is
reached, after 20 days of constant production.
Two dimensional well model
The temperature change of a well and its
surroundings during a discharge of the well is
presented here. These results are later used as a
thermal
load
in
the
structural
analysis.
The rock temperature remains unchanged at the outer
boundary of the model, therefore the boundary
conditions at the outer boundary of the ground, which
is 20 m from the center of the well, is T gr = 0C. At
the inner wall of the production casing, the
temperature change is based on pre and post
discharge temperature data from the Iceland
Geosurvey.

To understand better how the load changes, a

schematic of the conceptual load cases is shown in
Figure 13, focusing on the location uppermost in the
well above the water table. In phase I-II shown in the
figure the pressure is built up until it reaches a steady
target pressure value which is then kept constant for a
period of time until the well is discharged in phase
III. The discharge phase takes shorter time compared
to the other phases, i.e. minutes vs. weeks. In phase
IV, pressure and temperature remain steady in the
production phase. The pressure and temperature
change in phase III is of primal concern in this
analysis.
Figure 11: Steady-state thermal results, temperature
change before and after discharge.

Figure 13: Conceptual load case phases uppermost

in the well (red circle) above the water table; I.-II.
Pressure buildup, III. Discharge and IV. Production.

Figure 12: Transient thermal results, temperature

change two hours and twenty minutes after the
beginning of discharge.

The pressure change before and after the discharge

can be seen in Figure 14. The pressure difference
(from the blue to the green curve) is based on
measurements at well HE-46 and is used as a load in
the analysis.
0

Structural calculations
Two dimensional well model
The load for the structural model consists of the
temperature and pressure change from pre- to postdischarge. The temperature change results, obtained
from the transient thermal model, are used as load on
a geometrically identical structural model. The
pressure change is also applied as a load on the inside
of the production casing and the wellhead. Both a
nonlinear static analysis and a nonlinear transient
analysis are performed.

pre-discharge
discharge

-200

-400
Depth [m]

The steady state thermal results in Figure 11 show the

total temperature change in the well after the
discharge has started. The transient thermal results in
Figure 12 show the temperature change two hours
and twenty minutes after initiating the discharge,
which is the same time interval as the measurement
period of well HE-46. The transient thermal results
show how the temperature increases through time
into the outer layers of the well.

-600

-800
-1000

-1200

4
5
Pressure [Pa]

9
6

x 10

Figure 14: Pressure load on the structural model.

The difference between the pre-discharge and the
discharge pressure profile.
The static structural analysis is solved using a
nonlinear static solution method, where the numerous
nonlinearities, i.e. contact elements, nonlinear
material properties and large deformation effects, are
accounted for. The transient structural analysis is

solved using a nonlinear transient solution method

with time-dependent loading.
The results from both solution methods, i.e. static and
transient, show that the production casing moves
almost freely inside the wellhead. The casing, with
the help of the external couplings, overcomes the
friction with the concrete in connection with the outer
casing and pulls it up, as can be seen in Figure 18.
This occurs because of the thermal expansion of the
casing and the concrete. The ratio of damaged
concrete, i.e. the concrete that has surpassed the
compressive and tensional strength of the concrete
used in the well, can also be seen in Figure 15. The
high ratio above 150C is mainly concrete in tension
at the top of the well as well as concrete near the
couplings of the production casing. Figure 16 shows
how the concrete is more likely to get damaged
around the couplings. This is consistent with the
results from a three dimensional collapse model by
Kaldal (2011).
0.1

displacement of 665 mm of the production casing

inside the wellhead.

Figure 17: The steady-state results of the wellhead

rise at 200C at the top. Total wellhead rise of 92.3
mm and maximum displacement of the production
casing inside the wellhead of 0.665 m.

0.45

Displacement [mm]

0.35
0.3

0.06

0.25
0.2

0.04

0.15
0.1

0.02

Ratio of broken concrete

0.4
0.08

0.05
0

50

100
Temperature [C]

150

0
200

Figure 15: Steady-state results of the wellhead rise at

various temperatures and the ratio of broken
concrete around the production casing.

Figure 16: Stress (Von Mises, MPa) in the concrete

surrounding one of the coupling on the production
casing (only the concrete is visible).
In Figure 17 the steady state discharge results show a
wellhead rise of 92.3 mm and a maximum

Figure 18: The wellhead rise 48 seconds after

initiating discharge. Wellhead rise of 37 mm.
The transient wellhead rise in Figure 18, 48 seconds
after discharge, shows that the production casing
rises faster than the wellhead, because the
temperature of the production casing is much higher
in the beginning than the temperature of the security
casing connected to the wellhead.
If the transient results from the model are compared
to the measured wellhead rise of well HE-46, in
Figure 19, it can be observed that the measured
wellhead rise is fast at the beginning and then slows
down. The FEM results also show a fast wellhead
movement in the beginning but the rise is about four
times larger then the measured values. This could be
explained by additional constraints on the actual
wellhead compared to the modeled wellhead. The
measured wellhead includes additional "spider"
constraint, that consists of four tension bars, as well
as a bulky concrete cellar which provides additional
constraints. This is not included in the model. The

FEM results can be regarded as the unconstrained

wellhead results, but it should be noted that further
analysis and measurements are needed to validate the
model.
70

Uppward displacement [mm]

60
50
40
30
20
10
0

FEM results
Measured
0

100

200

300
Time [sec]

400

500

600

Figure 19: Wellhead displacements of the first ten

minutes of the discharge.
CONCLUSION
Measurements of pressure, temperature and wellhead
movement during discharge of well HE-46 in the
Hellisheii high temperature geothermal area, southwest Iceland, have been presented in this study. The
measured outer temperature of the expansion spool
showed that the temperature increases quickly in the
first few minutes as expected. The pressure
measurements showed fluctuations during the
discharge, where the pressure decreased rapidly
initially and then increased again up to a steady
value. The monitoring of the wellhead movement
showed a rise of 15 mm in one minute and then the
wellhead continued to rise up to 22 mm in the next
two hours.
An axially symmetric two dimensional nonlinear
transient thermal and structural finite element model
of a high temperature geothermal well was presented
and used to simulate the discharge of well HE-46.
The results were then compared to the measurements
performed on the well during discharge. The results
from a one dimensional transient thermal model
showed the thermal response of the uppermost layers
of a well with three casings. These results showed
that the thermal response of the well is fast and the
temperature increased to roughly 95% of the final
temperature in only few hours. Thermal equilibrium
is reached after 20 days according to the one
dimensional model. The two dimensional thermal
results showed the temperature change during a
discharge of a high temperature geothermal well
based on the measurements of well HE-46. The
results were used as an input load for a transient

structural model used to calculate the structural

response due to thermal and pressure loads.
Results from the steady state structural analysis
showed a wellhead rise of 92.3 mm and a rise of 665
mm of the production casing inside the wellhead.
Results from the transient structural analysis showed
a wellhead rise of 48 mm during the first minute of
discharge while the measured wellhead rise during
the first minute was 12 mm. This indicates that the
modeled wellhead is not as well constrained as the
actual wellhead. It should be noted that the friction
between contacting surfaces is probably the main
uncertainty in the analysis. The additional constraint
of the actual wellhead could also be explained by the
"spider" support which consists of four bars in
tension on top of the wellhead and holds the wellhead
in place as well as by the additional weight of the
wellhead and the concrete cellar around it.
A structural model of an underground structure is
hard to validate with actual displacement or strain
measurements below the surface. The validation must
therefore mostly rely on measurements above the
surface, such as of the rise of the wellhead during
discharge as well as strain measurements on the pipe
walls at the wellhead. Other measurements, such as
tensile tests of the steel used in the casings and pushout tests to valuate the steel-concrete interaction, are
also important for the model. It is clear that
additional measurements during discharge must be
performed in order to be able to validate the model
adequately. Once the model has been validated, it can
provide a variety of information regarding
displacements and stress of the well in its entirety.
Future work will involve analysis of the breakage of
the concrete near the couplings in more detail.
Another interesting topic is a comparison of different
wellhead designs in order to find the optimal design
in discharge situations of high temperature
geothermal wells.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by the University of Iceland
research fund, the Technology Development Fund at
RANNIS - The Icelandic Centre for Research, the
Innovation Center Iceland and GEORG - Geothermal
Research Group. Their support is much appreciated.
REFERENCES
Axelsson, G., Thrhallsson, S., Bjrnsson, G.
Stimulation of geothermal wells in basaltic rock in
Iceland. Kartause Ittingen, Zurich: ENGINE
ENhanced Geothermal Innovative Network for
Europe, Workshop 3, Switzerland, 2006.
Kaldal, G. S., Load History and Buckling of the
Production Casing in a High Temperature
Geothermal Well. Proceedings, Thirty-Sixth

Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering

Stanford University, 2011.
Karlsdttir, S. N., Thorbjornsson, I. O. High
Temperature Geothermal Wells Center of
Excellence in Iceland - Phase I: Corrosion testing of
steel in high temperature geothermal wells in
Iceland. Technical Report for RANNIS (The
Icelandic Centre for Research), Reykjavik, Oct.,
2009.
Magnsdttir, L. Nonlinear Finite Element Model of
a Geothermal Well. Master thesis at the University
of Iceland, 2009.
lafsson, . Structural and Stress Analysis of a
High Temperature Geothermal Wellhead. Master
thesis at the University of Iceland, 2011.
Plmason, G. Jarhitabk (in Icelandic). Reykjavk:
slenskar orkurannsknir og Orkustofnun, 2005.
Peng, S., Fu, J., Zhang, J. Borehole casing failure
analysis in unconsolidated formations: A case study.
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 59,
2007: 226-238.
Philippacopoulos,
A.
J.,
Berndt,
M.
L.
Characterization and Modeling of Cements for
Geothermal Well Casing Remediation. San
Francisco, California: Geothermal Resources
Council, 2000.
Philippacopoulos, A. J., Berndt, M. L. Structual
analysis of geothermal well cements. Elsevier
Science Ltd., 2002.
Portland Cement, Concrete, and Heat of Hydration.
Concrete Technology Today (Portland Cement
Association), nr. Volume 18/Number 2 (July 1997).
Sigursson, . Njung vi rvun borholna
slandi. Frttaveitan, HS-orka newsletter (in
Icelandic), 2010: 10-11.
Teodoriu, C., Falcone, G. Fatigue Life Prediction of
a Buttress Casing Connection Exposed to
Large Temperature Variations Proceedings, ThirtyThird Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir
Engineering Stanford University, 2008.