Hi Dennis, Thank you for making things clear. But I still have few doubts. I am using dumux/test/multidomain/poromechanics/el2p example for my model. In spatialparams_2p.hh, both deformation dependent porosity and deformation dependent permeability are being evaluated while in *spatialparams_poroelastic.hh*, deformation dependent porosity is being evaluated. In the base class "FVSpatialParamsPoroElastic", there is no method for the permeability calculation. Now I am confused, not sure which case is being solved here. Would you please explain implementation differences for the both cases?
Also, I really appreciate if you could point out the 3.2 branch to use deformation-dependent porosities model. Thanks & Regards, Ranjeet On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 7:02 PM Dennis Gläser < dennis.glae...@iws.uni-stuttgart.de> wrote: > Hi Ranjeet, > > regarding the formulation: there are no publications using the > poromechanics module of Dumux 3, yet. But, you can have a look at the PhD > thesis of Martin Beck: > > https://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/bitstream/11682/10435/3/Promo_MartinBeck.pdf > > and in particular the sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2. Equation 3.6 states the > momentum balance equation of the porous medium right before the > linearization. This is what is currently solved in Dumux. This implies that > you should have knowledge about your initial stress/deformation conditions, > or, solve for them primarily. In other words, if you initialize your system > with non-zero fluid pressures, you will observe stresses/deformations > caused by the initial conditions. If gravity is neglected and > incompressible fluids are considered, you could start your simulation with > zero pressure and zero displacement. > > Regarding the deformation-dependent porosities: That depends on your > application. Currently, there is an issue with the coupling derivatives of > the storage term, and thus, if the porosity is chosen > deformation-dependent, the non-linear solver convergence deteriorates > significantly. On the other hand, deformation-dependent permeabilities work > fine. > > We are planning to fix this issue very soon and hope that you want to use > Dumux for you application. We will not be able to fix it until the 3.2 > release which is scheduled for a few weeks from now. If you want, I can > point you to a fix branch on which the bugfix is done in an unsatisfactory > way, but on that branch you could develop your application for now. Once we > have solved the problem you could switch back to the release branch. > > Regards, > Dennis > > > On 29.03.20 15:01, Ranjeet kumar wrote: > > Hi All, > I want to develop a poroelastic model using el2p module in Dumux 3.1. As > per Dumux2.12 class documentation, soil mechanics sign convention (i.e. > compressive stresses are negative) has been used in el2p module. However, > papers & thesis based on Dumux2 has used opposite sign convention. Can you > clarify which sign convention is being used in Dumux3.1? > > Q2. As a linearised form of momentum balance equation is being solved in > el2p model, the solution effective stress obtained from: > > const auto effSigma = StressType::effectiveStressTensor(*this, element, > fvGeometry, elemVolVars, fluxVarsCache); > > is the total effective stress or change in effective stress with respect > to initial effective stress? > > > References: > 1. p-3, Volume-Based Modelling of Fault Reactivation in Porous Media Using > a Visco-Elastic Proxy Model. Martin Beck1 · Gabriele Seitz1 · Holger Class1 > 2. p-3, Modelling fault reactivation with characteristic stress-drop > terms. Martin Beck and Holger Class > 3. p68-69, Coupling Models of Different Complexity for the Simulation of > CO2 Storage in Deep Saline Aquifers > > > Thank you, > > Regards, > Ranjeet > > > _______________________________________________ > Dumux mailing > listdu...@listserv.uni-stuttgart.dehttps://listserv.uni-stuttgart.de/mailman/listinfo/dumux > >
_______________________________________________ Dumux mailing list Dumux@listserv.uni-stuttgart.de https://listserv.uni-stuttgart.de/mailman/listinfo/dumux
