1D compositional case without wells #1265
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks a lot for the contribution. Other than a few minor issues I think this looks good. The one thing I'd prefer we amend before merging is the SUMMARY section. We really should report some production curves/summary vectors in order for the case to be useful as a regression test.
compositional/1D_COMP_NO_WELLS.DATA
Outdated
|
|
||
| -- This is a 1D, pressure-driven CO₂ flooding example involving three components and two phases. | ||
| -- The components are CO₂, methane, and decane. | ||
| -- The first and last cells are assigned very large pore volumes to emulate a source and sink, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe instead of saying "The first and last cells..." we could say "Cells (1,1,1) and (30,1,1)..." in order to be very explicit about the coordinates?
compositional/1D_COMP_NO_WELLS.DATA
Outdated
| TOPS | ||
| 30*0 | ||
| / |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's very shallow. Is there any density variation by depth? If so, how much do the simulation results change if the top of the formation is (much) deeper?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is a 1D case and flat. I do not think the depth matters here.
compositional/1D_COMP_NO_WELLS.DATA
Outdated
| --BPR | ||
| --/ | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is the goal of this case to become part of the simulator's regression test suite? If so, we should be reporting at least some production curves here.
compositional/1D_COMP_NO_WELLS.DATA
Outdated
| --'PRESSURE' / | ||
|
|
||
| RPTRST | ||
| BASIC = 1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd prefer if this was BASIC=2 instead. BASIC=1 and BASIC=2 do have the same effect here, since we're using UNIFOUT, but BASIC=2 is more explicit about that.
compositional/1D_COMP_NO_WELLS.DATA
Outdated
| DX | ||
| 30*10 | ||
| / | ||
| DY | ||
| 30*30 | ||
| / | ||
| DZ | ||
| 30*1 | ||
| / |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I generally prefer the tensor product form for this, i.e.
DXV
30*10
/
DYV
10
/
DZV
1
/
since that's less ambiguous.
Since there is not wells involved yet for this case, it is mostly for UNRST file result checking. Maybe I can check how the block summary keywords or field work for the summary output yet. Will report back. |
GitPaean
force-pushed
the
compositional_case
branch
from
61dd7e2 to
da20ff2
Compare
|
Have not managed to update for summary output yet. |
preparing for the regression test for flowexp_comp.
The results for this case have been validated.