Mixing energy #309
Mixing energy #309
Conversation
… temperature without entalpy term enabled
There was a problem hiding this comment.
in principle this is okay. I have a few remarks, though:
- please use camelCase within this module
- please do not leave commented out code in the PR, remove it instead
- what's the difference between the new
energy()function in the fluid state andinternalEnergy()? - is the new function actually used?
- if yes, did you compare this with E100 or E300?
| { return (*enthalpy_)[phaseIdx] - pressure(phaseIdx)/density(phaseIdx); } | ||
| { | ||
| //double ent_fac=0.0; | ||
| double ent_fac=1.0; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
in principle this is the same but internalEnergy only forward to a stored entalpy. For eclipse type of models it is probably simpler to do the oposite.
| @@ -551,7 +551,7 @@ class BlackOilFluidSystem : public BaseFluidSystem<Scalar, BlackOilFluidSystem<S | |||
| if (enableDissolvedGas()) { | |||
| // miscible oil | |||
| const LhsEval& Rs = Opm::BlackOil::template getRs_<ThisType, FluidState, LhsEval>(fluidState, regionIdx); | |||
| const LhsEval& bo = oilPvt_->inverseFormationVolumeFactor(regionIdx, T, p, Rs); | |||
| const LhsEval& bo = inverseFormationVolumeFactor(fluidState, phaseIdx, regionIdx); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Isn't the new version identical to the old one? if no, the Rs variable above should be unused?!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do not think so, since since the member function do the bookkeeping with of finding if the fluid is saturated or not. It probably had been better to take all of this directly from the state, since this will ensure consistency with the flow problem which is essential for physical behavoir.. (Else the mass in the energy equation is not consitent with the mass int the system and tempreratur can be gennerated.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How could I take it directly form the state. (I tried but broke some tests)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The interpolation between the saturated and the undersaturated interpolation should only affect the derivatives, i.e. if there are no convergence issues due to energy, it should not be necessary!?
How could I take it directly form the state. (I tried but broke some tests)
BlackOilFluidState has and invB() method. for generic fluid states this only makes limited sense, so it needs to be calculated. The best technical solution is probably to create something analogous to the getRs_(fluidState) function for inverse formation volume factors:
But I guess that this is too much effort here...
| static LhsEval energy(const FluidState& fluidState, | ||
| unsigned phaseIdx, | ||
| unsigned regionIdx) | ||
| { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
that function should be named either internalEnergy() or enthalpy(). Also, internalEnergy() and enthalpy() need to be consistent, i.e. h_alpha = u_alpha + p_alpha/rho_alpha.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I followed your example and this energy is only used to calculate enthalpy and could probably be made private.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah, okay. maybe this can even replace the enthalpy() and/or internalEnergy() functions directly?
| + p/density<FluidState, LhsEval>(fluidState, phaseIdx, regionIdx); | ||
| //const auto& T = Opm::decay<LhsEval>(fluidState.temperature(phaseIdx)); | ||
| //double ent_fac=0; | ||
| double ent_fac = 1.0; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think for consistency with E100 and some simple investigation it had been use full to have this entfac as parameter. but it need to be consistent between the fluid state and the fluid system in the way. (If entFace = 0, enthalpy effect is ignored and one should temprature should stay within boundary conditions if I am not wrong...)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is this an ECLIPSE parameter, i.e. can it somehow be set from the deck?
| gasPvt_->internalEnergy(regionIdx, T, p, Opm::BlackOil::template getRv_<ThisType, FluidState, LhsEval>(fluidState, regionIdx)) | ||
| + p/density<FluidState, LhsEval>(fluidState, phaseIdx, regionIdx); | ||
| //const auto& T = Opm::decay<LhsEval>(fluidState.temperature(phaseIdx)); | ||
| //double ent_fac=0; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
please remove these two lines.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| throw std::logic_error("Unhandled phase index "+std::to_string(phaseIdx)); | ||
| //return energy; |
|
I thought about whether this is physically a good idea and I am now even more unsure: the internal energy for wet gas and live oil should be lower (or maybe higher?) than for the same amounts of pure gas and pure oil. i.e., physically the temperature should change if the two components are mixed together... |
|
it seems like this became stale. what's the status here? if you think we should spend time on testing this, please make it mergable again. |
Modifications to make energy module for black oil to not only gennerate termperature due to the entalpy/work term. This is physical since we assume the energy density only depend on temperature. It is introduced energy density on each phase depending on the phases.