Hi, On Monday 30 June 2014 19:11:28 Bård Skaflestad wrote: > On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 18:07 +0200, Andreas Lauser wrote: > > I'm currently struggling with the semantics of the transmissibilities > > Let me just start by remarking that when you have an UnstructuredGrid, > the transmissibility problem is already solved by the pair of functions > tpfa_htrans_compute() and tpfa_trans_compute() declared in module > opm-core's > > <opm/core/pressure/tpfa/trans_tpfa.h> > > header. At least in the mode referred to as "NEWTRAN" in the > documentation. > > Secondly, ECLIPSE's TRAN[XYZ] arrays do not define transmissibilities > across faults. These arrays are only meaningful when discussing > Cartesian connections (e.g., (I,J,K)-to-(I+1,J,K) for TRANX with the > actual value stored in the cell with the smallest 'I' index). > Transmissibility across non-neighbouring connections as generated by > faults are generally handled elsewhere and represented differently > (typically not exposed to the input deck).
Yes some parts of the docu make this impression, but the TD also says that the
cell transmissibility T_j is not necessarily the logically-Cartesian neighbor
and the figure used for illustration purposes also clearly shows a non-
conforming grid...
> What problem are you trying to solve?
the problem is that I want to include the NTG and MULT[XYZ]-? keywords in the
transmissibility calculations and that IMHO the C code obscures what it does
quite effectively. More relevantly though is that I'm not really sure that the
C code does the right thing in the first place, so even if I go for a
modification of the existing C functions, I'd like to understand why they do
what they do and how it relates to the Eclipse documentation...
cheers
Andreas
--
Notice: "String" and "Thread" are the same thing to non-computing
people.
— Programming.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Opm mailing list [email protected] http://www.opm-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opm
