Dear Etienne, we are trying to find out what part of the implementation causes the difference.
Could you try using the 3.4 Darcy's law implementation changing line 193 in darcyslaw.hh to const auto& tij = std::abs(fluxVarsCache.advectionTij()); That would be very helpful! One possible reason could be that one this corner point grid the transmissibilities can become negative. This modification is also included in Sebastian’s version of darcyslaw.hh. See also the previous discussion here https://www.mail-archive.com/dumux@listserv.uni-stuttgart.de/msg02533.html <https://www.mail-archive.com/dumux@listserv.uni-stuttgart.de/msg02533.html> Best regards, Timo > On 15. Feb 2022, at 19:11, Etienne Ahusborde <etienne.ahusbo...@univ-pau.fr> > 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 <dumux-boun...@listserv.uni-stuttgart.de> >> <mailto:dumux-boun...@listserv.uni-stuttgart.de> Im Auftrag von Etienne >> Ahusborde >> Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. Februar 2022 16:22 >> An: DuMuX User Forum <dumux@listserv.uni-stuttgart.de> >> <mailto:dumux@listserv.uni-stuttgart.de> >> Cc: Nicolas Pillardou <nicolas.pillar...@univ-pau.fr> >> <mailto:nicolas.pillar...@univ-pau.fr> >> 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 >> DuMux@listserv.uni-stuttgart.de <mailto:DuMux@listserv.uni-stuttgart.de> >> https://listserv.uni-stuttgart.de/mailman/listinfo/dumux >> <https://listserv.uni-stuttgart.de/mailman/listinfo/dumux> > _______________________________________________ > DuMux mailing list > DuMux@listserv.uni-stuttgart.de > https://listserv.uni-stuttgart.de/mailman/listinfo/dumux
_______________________________________________ DuMux mailing list DuMux@listserv.uni-stuttgart.de https://listserv.uni-stuttgart.de/mailman/listinfo/dumux
