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
Re: [DuMux] Setting zero transmissibility along an interface between 2 layers
Deah Mahmoud,
I seem to have been triggered by your last question:
So Is there a way in dumux to ensure no flux across the interface between 2
layers ?
If you want to keep heat conduction across the interface then what I
said makes no sense, of course. Besides Timo's proposition, I am
wondering if it may be possible to achieve this also if you overload the
function
static constexpr bool evaluatePermeabilityAtScvfIP()
{ return true; }
in your spatial params and return true. This evaluates the permeability
at the face centers. For positions on the interface, you could return
zero in your permeabilityAtPos() function. This, of course, fails if you
have other material interfaces at which you don't want to evaluate the
permeability at the face center but use a harmonic average instead. In
case you only have a single interface, this could be an approach that is
simple to try out.
Cheers,
Dennis
On 28.04.21 09:09, Timo Koch wrote:
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 for both upper and lower boundary layers but it
doesn't help the numerics and the convergence becomes extremely difficult. So I
increased the permeability of those boundary layers keeping it 1e^3 lower than
that of the aquifer and the code became stable regarding the easiness of
convergence but I could still see an anomaly in the pressure in those upper and
lower boundary layers as shown in the attached image in which 3 numerical
layers were used to represent each of the upper and lower boundary layers.
So Is there a way in dumux to ensure no flux across the interface between 2
layers ? Thanks in advance.
Best Regards,
Mahmoud
___
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
___
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
Re: [DuMux] Setting zero transmissibility along an interface between 2 layers
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 for both upper and >> lower boundary layers but it doesn't help the numerics and the convergence >> becomes extremely difficult. So I increased the permeability of those >> boundary layers keeping it 1e^3 lower than that of the aquifer and the code >> became stable regarding the easiness of convergence but I could still see an >> anomaly in the pressure in those upper and lower boundary layers as shown in >> the attached image in which 3 numerical layers were used to represent each >> of the upper and lower boundary layers. >> >> So Is there a way in dumux to ensure no flux across the interface between 2 >> layers ? Thanks in advance. >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Mahmoud >> ___ >> 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 ___ DuMux mailing list DuMux@listserv.uni-stuttgart.de https://listserv.uni-stuttgart.de/mailman/listinfo/dumux
Re: [DuMux] Setting zero transmissibility along an interface between 2 layers
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 for both upper and lower boundary layers but it doesn't help the numerics and the convergence becomes extremely difficult. So I increased the permeability of those boundary layers keeping it 1e^3 lower than that of the aquifer and the code became stable regarding the easiness of convergence but I could still see an anomaly in the pressure in those upper and lower boundary layers as shown in the attached image in which 3 numerical layers were used to represent each of the upper and lower boundary layers. So Is there a way in dumux to ensure no flux across the interface between 2 layers ? Thanks in advance. Best Regards, Mahmoud ___ 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
[DuMux] Setting zero transmissibility along an interface between 2 layers
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 for both upper and lower boundary layers but it doesn't help the numerics and the convergence becomes extremely difficult. So I increased the permeability of those boundary layers keeping it 1e^3 lower than that of the aquifer and the code became stable regarding the easiness of convergence but I could still see an anomaly in the pressure in those upper and lower boundary layers as shown in the attached image in which 3 numerical layers were used to represent each of the upper and lower boundary layers. So Is there a way in dumux to ensure no flux across the interface between 2 layers ? Thanks in advance. Best Regards, Mahmoud ___ DuMux mailing list DuMux@listserv.uni-stuttgart.de https://listserv.uni-stuttgart.de/mailman/listinfo/dumux
