Re: [DuMux] Setting zero transmissibility along an interface between 2 layers
> On 30. Apr 2021, at 19:17, Mahmoud Atef Mahmoud Mohamed Aboelseoud S277151
> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Timo,
>
> I went with your proposal of copying and modifying the darcyslaw class and
> the code is working but I could still monitor a pressure decrease (In eclipse
> it's constant) and a not so small temperature decrease in the cell above the
> injection well which indicates heat transfer by convection and not just
> conduction and thus indicates a flux still crossing the interface. Here's
> what I did to modify the darcyslaw class to set zero transmissibility across
> the interface. Please correct me if I did something wrong.
>
> 1) I copied the darcyslaw.hh file from dumux/flux/ccmpfa into my own module
> and changed the name of the class into ModifiedDarcy and the file name to
> modifiedarcy.hh
>
> 2) I included the modified file in the problem class: #include
> "modifieddarcy.hh"
>
> 3) In the problem class I defined the following function:
> Scalar transmissibilityFactor(SubControlVolumeFace scvf) const
>{
>
>if (scvf.center()[2] == 15) {return 0.0;}
>else if (scvf.center()[2] == 45) {return 0.0;}
>else {return 1.0;}
>
>} // where 15 and 45 are the interfaces of the geothermal aquifer layer
> with bottom and upper boundary layers respectively.+
Hi Mahmoud,
you shouldn’t use equality comparison for floating point numbers, that most
likely fails.
Use a threshold and fuzzy comparison, or for example
Dune::FloatCmp::eq(scvf.center()[2], 15.0). (You need to include
dune/common/float_cmp.hh (or similar name))
Timo
>
> 4) In the ModifiedDarcy class, I set the tFactor variable and used it as
> follows:
>
> //! Compute the advective flux across an scvf
>template
>static Scalar flux(const Problem& problem,
> const Element& element,
> const FVElementGeometry& fvGeometry,
> const ElementVolumeVariables& elemVolVars,
> const SubControlVolumeFace& scvf,
> const unsigned int phaseIdx,
> const ElementFluxVariablesCache& elemFluxVarsCache)
>{
>const auto& fluxVarsCache = elemFluxVarsCache[scvf];
>const auto tFactor = problem.transmissibilityFactor(scvf);
>// forward to the private function taking the iv data handle
>if (fluxVarsCache.usesSecondaryIv())
>return flux_(problem, fluxVarsCache,
> fluxVarsCache.advectionSecondaryDataHandle(), phaseIdx)*tFactor ;
>else
>return flux_(problem, fluxVarsCache,
> fluxVarsCache.advectionPrimaryDataHandle(), phaseIdx)*tFactor ;
>
>
> I would appreciate your feedback and help to fix this.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Mahmoud
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Il 2021-04-28 09:09 Timo Koch ha scritto:
>> Dear Mahmoud,
>> I understand it in a way that you want to have no mass flow over these
>> boundaries but there can be heat conduction.
>> You could solve this either by using a multidomain model where you
>> only solve heat conduction in some parts of the mesh. This is a bit
>> more evolved.
>> A simpler method would be to modify Darcy’s law and introduce a
>> transmissibility factor obtained from the problem. So in Darcy’s law
>> it would be (pseudo code)
>> const auto tFactor = problem.transmissilityFactor(scvf);
>> return transmissibility*tFactor;
>> and in the problem you implement this function and return 0.0 at the
>> desired positions.
>> I note that you can fully do that in your own module by duplicating
>> the original Darcy’s law, rename the class, make the changes, and set
>> it as the property AdvectionType.
>> For prototyping you can of course just start by modifying Darcy’s law
>> in the dumux core.
>> Timo
>>> On 28. Apr 2021, at 09:02, Dennis Gläser
>>> wrote:
>>> Dear Mahmoud,
>>> as far as I know, this is not possible out-of-the-box. If you generate the
>>> mesh externally from a geometry, you may try duplicating the interface line
>>> (I am assuming 2d here) between the two layers so that they get meshed
>>> "twice". Then, these two lines end up as boundaries in the computational
>>> domain, at which you can prescribe no-flow boundary conditions. Gmsh, for
>>> instance, also has a feature called "crack" (or similar), where you can
>>> split the mesh along defined lines after meshing.
>>> If you do such thing, it only works if there are no floating (sub-)domains
>>> around that are not connected somehow to Dirichlet boundary conditions. I
>>> am assuming your interface does not go through the entire domain, as
>>> otherwise you'd have two decoupled systems. In any case, I do not see your
>>> attached image with your setup. My guess is that the mailing list does not
>>> allow for attachments?
>>> Cheers,
>>> Dennis
>>> On 28.04.21 05:52, Mahmoud Atef Mahmoud Mohamed Aboelseoud S277151 wrote:
Re: [DuMux] Setting zero transmissibility along an interface between 2 layers
I also forgot to mention in the previous e-mail that I set the advection
type in the properties as follows:
// Set Advection type
template
struct AdvectionType { using type =
ModifiedDarcy; };
Thanks in advance!
Best Regards,
Mahmoud
---
Il 2021-04-30 19:17 Mahmoud Atef Mahmoud Mohamed Aboelseoud S277151 ha
scritto:
Dear Timo,
I went with your proposal of copying and modifying the darcyslaw class
and the code is working but I could still monitor a pressure decrease
(In eclipse it's constant) and a not so small temperature decrease in
the cell above the injection well which indicates heat transfer by
convection and not just conduction and thus indicates a flux still
crossing the interface. Here's what I did to modify the darcyslaw
class to set zero transmissibility across the interface. Please
correct me if I did something wrong.
1) I copied the darcyslaw.hh file from dumux/flux/ccmpfa into my own
module and changed the name of the class into ModifiedDarcy and the
file name to modifiedarcy.hh
2) I included the modified file in the problem class: #include
"modifieddarcy.hh"
3) In the problem class I defined the following function:
Scalar transmissibilityFactor(SubControlVolumeFace scvf) const
{
if (scvf.center()[2] == 15) {return 0.0;}
else if (scvf.center()[2] == 45) {return 0.0;}
else {return 1.0;}
} // where 15 and 45 are the interfaces of the geothermal aquifer
layer with bottom and upper boundary layers respectively.
4) In the ModifiedDarcy class, I set the tFactor variable and used it
as follows:
//! Compute the advective flux across an scvf
template
static Scalar flux(const Problem& problem,
const Element& element,
const FVElementGeometry& fvGeometry,
const ElementVolumeVariables& elemVolVars,
const SubControlVolumeFace& scvf,
const unsigned int phaseIdx,
const ElementFluxVariablesCache&
elemFluxVarsCache)
{
const auto& fluxVarsCache = elemFluxVarsCache[scvf];
const auto tFactor = problem.transmissibilityFactor(scvf);
// forward to the private function taking the iv data handle
if (fluxVarsCache.usesSecondaryIv())
return flux_(problem, fluxVarsCache,
fluxVarsCache.advectionSecondaryDataHandle(), phaseIdx)*tFactor ;
else
return flux_(problem, fluxVarsCache,
fluxVarsCache.advectionPrimaryDataHandle(), phaseIdx)*tFactor ;
}
I would appreciate your feedback and help to fix this.
Best Regards,
Mahmoud
--
Il 2021-04-28 09:09 Timo Koch ha scritto:
Dear Mahmoud,
I understand it in a way that you want to have no mass flow over these
boundaries but there can be heat conduction.
You could solve this either by using a multidomain model where you
only solve heat conduction in some parts of the mesh. This is a bit
more evolved.
A simpler method would be to modify Darcy’s law and introduce a
transmissibility factor obtained from the problem. So in Darcy’s law
it would be (pseudo code)
const auto tFactor = problem.transmissilityFactor(scvf);
return transmissibility*tFactor;
and in the problem you implement this function and return 0.0 at the
desired positions.
I note that you can fully do that in your own module by duplicating
the original Darcy’s law, rename the class, make the changes, and set
it as the property AdvectionType.
For prototyping you can of course just start by modifying Darcy’s law
in the dumux core.
Timo
On 28. Apr 2021, at 09:02, Dennis Gläser
wrote:
Dear Mahmoud,
as far as I know, this is not possible out-of-the-box. If you
generate the mesh externally from a geometry, you may try duplicating
the interface line (I am assuming 2d here) between the two layers so
that they get meshed "twice". Then, these two lines end up as
boundaries in the computational domain, at which you can prescribe
no-flow boundary conditions. Gmsh, for instance, also has a feature
called "crack" (or similar), where you can split the mesh along
defined lines after meshing.
If you do such thing, it only works if there are no floating
(sub-)domains around that are not connected somehow to Dirichlet
boundary conditions. I am assuming your interface does not go through
the entire domain, as otherwise you'd have two decoupled systems. In
any case, I do not see your attached image with your setup. My guess
is that the mailing list does not allow for attachments?
Cheers,
Dennis
On 28.04.21 05:52, Mahmoud Atef Mahmoud Mohamed Aboelseoud S277151
wrote:
Hello Dumux team,
Is there a way in Dumux to impose zero transmissibility along an
interface between 2 layers to have zero flux across that interface
like in the industrial simulator Eclip
Re: [DuMux] Setting zero transmissibility along an interface between 2 layers
Dear Timo,
I went with your proposal of copying and modifying the darcyslaw class
and the code is working but I could still monitor a pressure decrease
(In eclipse it's constant) and a not so small temperature decrease in
the cell above the injection well which indicates heat transfer by
convection and not just conduction and thus indicates a flux still
crossing the interface. Here's what I did to modify the darcyslaw class
to set zero transmissibility across the interface. Please correct me if
I did something wrong.
1) I copied the darcyslaw.hh file from dumux/flux/ccmpfa into my own
module and changed the name of the class into ModifiedDarcy and the file
name to modifiedarcy.hh
2) I included the modified file in the problem class: #include
"modifieddarcy.hh"
3) In the problem class I defined the following function:
Scalar transmissibilityFactor(SubControlVolumeFace scvf) const
{
if (scvf.center()[2] == 15) {return 0.0;}
else if (scvf.center()[2] == 45) {return 0.0;}
else {return 1.0;}
} // where 15 and 45 are the interfaces of the geothermal aquifer
layer with bottom and upper boundary layers respectively.
4) In the ModifiedDarcy class, I set the tFactor variable and used it as
follows:
//! Compute the advective flux across an scvf
template
static Scalar flux(const Problem& problem,
const Element& element,
const FVElementGeometry& fvGeometry,
const ElementVolumeVariables& elemVolVars,
const SubControlVolumeFace& scvf,
const unsigned int phaseIdx,
const ElementFluxVariablesCache&
elemFluxVarsCache)
{
const auto& fluxVarsCache = elemFluxVarsCache[scvf];
const auto tFactor = problem.transmissibilityFactor(scvf);
// forward to the private function taking the iv data handle
if (fluxVarsCache.usesSecondaryIv())
return flux_(problem, fluxVarsCache,
fluxVarsCache.advectionSecondaryDataHandle(), phaseIdx)*tFactor ;
else
return flux_(problem, fluxVarsCache,
fluxVarsCache.advectionPrimaryDataHandle(), phaseIdx)*tFactor ;
}
I would appreciate your feedback and help to fix this.
Best Regards,
Mahmoud
--
Il 2021-04-28 09:09 Timo Koch ha scritto:
Dear Mahmoud,
I understand it in a way that you want to have no mass flow over these
boundaries but there can be heat conduction.
You could solve this either by using a multidomain model where you
only solve heat conduction in some parts of the mesh. This is a bit
more evolved.
A simpler method would be to modify Darcy’s law and introduce a
transmissibility factor obtained from the problem. So in Darcy’s law
it would be (pseudo code)
const auto tFactor = problem.transmissilityFactor(scvf);
return transmissibility*tFactor;
and in the problem you implement this function and return 0.0 at the
desired positions.
I note that you can fully do that in your own module by duplicating
the original Darcy’s law, rename the class, make the changes, and set
it as the property AdvectionType.
For prototyping you can of course just start by modifying Darcy’s law
in the dumux core.
Timo
On 28. Apr 2021, at 09:02, Dennis Gläser
wrote:
Dear Mahmoud,
as far as I know, this is not possible out-of-the-box. If you generate
the mesh externally from a geometry, you may try duplicating the
interface line (I am assuming 2d here) between the two layers so that
they get meshed "twice". Then, these two lines end up as boundaries in
the computational domain, at which you can prescribe no-flow boundary
conditions. Gmsh, for instance, also has a feature called "crack" (or
similar), where you can split the mesh along defined lines after
meshing.
If you do such thing, it only works if there are no floating
(sub-)domains around that are not connected somehow to Dirichlet
boundary conditions. I am assuming your interface does not go through
the entire domain, as otherwise you'd have two decoupled systems. In
any case, I do not see your attached image with your setup. My guess
is that the mailing list does not allow for attachments?
Cheers,
Dennis
On 28.04.21 05:52, Mahmoud Atef Mahmoud Mohamed Aboelseoud S277151
wrote:
Hello Dumux team,
Is there a way in Dumux to impose zero transmissibility along an
interface between 2 layers to have zero flux across that interface
like in the industrial simulator Eclipse ? I'm simulating a
geothermal aquifer with an upper and lower boundary layers where into
the aquifer, there's an injection well (cooled water with low
temperature) and a production well. I'm using the OnePNI model and
CCMpfa discretization scheme. I want to monitor the heat transfer by
conduction at the boundary layers and thus I need to have them inside
my domain. I tried setting zero permeability fo
