Hi Sebastian and Etienne, can any of you two open an issue with the problem description and proposed solution @ https://git.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/dumux-repositories/dumux/-/issues? This looks like something we should definitely look into before the next release. The new version probably has a more consistent incorporation of gravity, introduces quite some time ago. However, there can be a mistake in there.
Thank you in advance Timo > On 15. Feb 2022, at 19:11, Etienne Ahusborde <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Dear Sebastian, > > You were right, it was the same problem as yours. Now I obtain a good result > > <Sg-50years.png> > Thank you very much > > Regards > > Etienne > > Le 15/02/2022 à 16:57, Alexander Sebastian Hogeweg a écrit : >> Hello Etienne, >> >> I guess you are facing a similar problem I had last year. This problem >> occurred with heterogeneous petrophysical properties and the cctpfa >> discretization. In my case, the solution for the problem was a change in the >> cctpfa/darcyslaw.hh. Attached you can find the modifications based on an >> older DuMuX version. Please let me/us know if it solves your problem. >> >> Best Regards, >> Sebastian >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: DuMux <[email protected]> >> <mailto:[email protected]> Im Auftrag von Etienne >> Ahusborde >> Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. Februar 2022 16:22 >> An: DuMuX User Forum <[email protected]> >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> Cc: Nicolas Pillardou <[email protected]> >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> Betreff: [DuMux] CO2 geological storage >> >> Hello everyone, >> >> With my colleagues we are still working on numerical simulation of >> geological storage of CO2. >> >> Using the version 3.4 of DUMUX, we tried to consider the 3D benchmark >> proposed in Holger Class et al , A benchmark study on problems related to >> CO2 storage in geologic formations, Computational Geosciences 13 (2009), no. >> 4, 409–434. >> >> We obtain strong discrepancies between our results and the ones computed for >> instance in Martin Schneider et al, Monotone nonlinear finite-volume method >> for nonisothermal two-phase two-component flow in porous media, >> International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids (2017), 352-381. >> >> We consider the non-isothermal case using the co2 model and the brineco2.hh >> fluidsystem without any modification. Using the original data, we built a >> dgf file for the mesh containing the permeability and the porosity for each >> element . Then we tried to consider both TPFA and BOX schemes. >> >> The enclosed results represent the gas saturation after 25 years of >> injection. For the BOX scheme, they are close to the results obtained by >> Schneider et al and also in the first original paper of DUMUX of 2011. >> >> However for the TPFA scheme, they are very different from the the ones >> obtain by Schneider et al and other participants in Class et Al. >> >> We investigated many things but we did not succeed to identify the origin of >> these strong discrepancies. >> >> Does anyone have an idea where this could come from? >> >> Any help would be welcome. >> >> Thanks >> >> Etienne >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> DuMux mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://listserv.uni-stuttgart.de/mailman/listinfo/dumux >> <https://listserv.uni-stuttgart.de/mailman/listinfo/dumux> > _______________________________________________ > DuMux mailing list > [email protected] > https://listserv.uni-stuttgart.de/mailman/listinfo/dumux
_______________________________________________ DuMux mailing list [email protected] https://listserv.uni-stuttgart.de/mailman/listinfo/dumux
