Re: [OPM] Regarding transmissibility multipliers

2014-06-20 Thread Andreas Lauser
Hi, On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 18:21:07 Bård Skaflestad wrote: On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 15:16 +, Joakim Hove wrote: MULTX: This keyword is a multiplier for the transmissibility on the x-face between cells (i,j,k) and (i+1,j,k). MULTX-: This keyword is a multiplier for the transmissibility

Re: [OPM] Regarding transmissibility multipliers

2014-06-20 Thread Bård Skaflestad
On Fri, 2014-06-20 at 11:49 +0200, Andreas Lauser wrote: [i]f MULTX- is not specified, do the values specified in MULTX also apply for the negative direction? No, they do not. If MULTX- is not explicitly defined in the input, the format requires that MULTX- be implicitly assigned an all-ones

Re: [OPM] Regarding transmissibility multipliers

2014-06-19 Thread Joakim Hove
I think you're right. You've outlined a very pragmatic approach. I think we should run with suggestion. Good; given the current change in focus I think I will start by properly internalizing the content of the FAULTS keyword - hopefully MULTREGT will not come about and

Re: [OPM] Regarding transmissibility multipliers

2014-06-18 Thread Alf Birger Rustad
...@sintef.no] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 11:54 PM To: opm@opm-project.org Subject: Re: [OPM] Regarding transmissibility multipliers 17. juni 2014 kl. 18:21 skrev Bård Skaflestad bard.skafles...@sintef.no: I don't think we'll be able to get away with a connection-based data structure for multipliers. I

Re: [OPM] Regarding transmissibility multipliers

2014-06-18 Thread Joakim Hove
On the other hand, if 'MULTFLT' is used in *EDIT* (or, shudder, *SCHEDULE*), then it modifies the trans values directly. The SCHEDULE section I think is unrealistic to support initially; as for the EDIT section my understanding of the situation is that it is mostly relevant if the

Re: [OPM] Regarding transmissibility multipliers

2014-06-18 Thread Bård Skaflestad
On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 10:16 +, Joakim Hove wrote: On the other hand, if 'MULTFLT' is used in *EDIT* (or, shudder, *SCHEDULE*), then it modifies the trans values directly. The SCHEDULE section I think is unrealistic to support initially; Agreed. as for the EDIT section my

[OPM] Regarding transmissibility multipliers

2014-06-17 Thread Joakim Hove
Hello, Following the closed PR: https://github.com/OPM/opm-parser/pull/241 I have tried to read and understand how the MULT([XYZ])-? and FAULTS/MULTFLT keywords interact. This is my summary of the situation, comments and critique highly welcome. MULTX: This keyword is a multiplier for the

Re: [OPM] Regarding transmissibility multipliers

2014-06-17 Thread Bård Skaflestad
On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 15:16 +, Joakim Hove wrote: Following the closed PR: https://github.com/OPM/opm-parser/pull/241 I have tried to read and understand how the MULT([XYZ])-? and FAULTS/MULTFLT keywords interact. Much appreciated. This is intricate material. MULTX: This keyword is a