Hi, Karl, I did not see any convergence problem with Bw to be 0.8, 1.0 and 1.2. I assume Bw is the second term in the keyword PVTW .
Which version of OPM are you using? I attached the DATA file I am using and I only adjusted Bw value in PVTW keyword for testing. I am not that familiar with the purpose of the experiments and I am not sure what kind of effects that Bw can make here. With Bw to be 0.8, -- Days dd/mm/yyyy FPR FVIR FVPR -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.00 02/01/2020 4498.12 11498.4 11498.4 4.00 05/01/2020 4496.79 11498 11498 13.00 14/01/2020 4495.43 11498.1 11498.1 40.00 10/02/2020 4492.42 11498.3 11498.4 121.00 01/05/2020 4486.32 11495.1 11495.1 200.00 19/07/2020 4482.02 11483.3 11483.4 400.00 04/02/2021 4475.41 11341.2 11341.2 600.00 23/08/2021 4472.53 11043.4 11043.4 800.00 11/03/2022 4470.95 10607.6 10607.6 1000.00 27/09/2022 4473.2 10146.4 10146.4 1200.00 15/04/2023 4474.59 9737.92 9737.92 1400.00 01/11/2023 4476.21 9391.09 9391.09 1600.00 19/05/2024 4477.95 9131.07 9131.07 1800.00 05/12/2024 4478.67 8937.87 8937.87 2000.00 23/06/2025 4480.73 8783.53 8783.53 With Bw to be 1.0 -- Days dd/mm/yyyy FPR FVIR FVPR -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.00 02/01/2020 4498.11 11499.4 11499.4 4.00 05/01/2020 4496.79 11499.3 11499.3 13.00 14/01/2020 4495.43 11499.4 11499.4 40.00 10/02/2020 4491.98 11499.5 11499.5 121.00 01/05/2020 4485.95 11497.8 11497.8 200.00 19/07/2020 4481.67 11491.7 11491.7 400.00 04/02/2021 4475.47 11424.2 11424.2 600.00 23/08/2021 4472.37 11292.4 11292.4 800.00 11/03/2022 4471.52 11110 11110 1000.00 27/09/2022 4472.95 10920.1 10920.1 1200.00 15/04/2023 4473.7 10764.3 10764.3 1400.00 01/11/2023 4474.59 10637.2 10637.2 1600.00 19/05/2024 4475.52 10539.8 10539.8 1800.00 05/12/2024 4476.48 10457.3 10457.3 2000.00 23/06/2025 4477.32 10386.9 10386.9 With Bw to be 1.2 -- Days dd/mm/yyyy FPR FVIR FVPR -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.00 02/01/2020 4498.12 11500.2 11500.2 4.00 05/01/2020 4496.68 11500.2 11500.2 13.00 14/01/2020 4495.32 11500.2 11500.2 40.00 10/02/2020 4491.92 11500.2 11500.2 121.00 01/05/2020 4486.3 11500.7 11500.7 200.00 19/07/2020 4482.14 11502.7 11502.7 400.00 04/02/2021 4475.98 11523.2 11523.2 600.00 23/08/2021 4472.91 11562.6 11562.6 800.00 11/03/2022 4471.84 11618.8 11618.8 1000.00 27/09/2022 4471.89 11682.3 11682.3 1200.00 15/04/2023 4472.22 11740.9 11740.9 1400.00 01/11/2023 4472.34 11784.6 11784.6 1600.00 19/05/2024 4473.02 11818 11818 1800.00 05/12/2024 4473.88 11845.6 11845.6 2000.00 23/06/2025 4474.63 11868.4 11868.4 Please let me know if the results are desired to you. Best Regards, Kai Bao On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 9:02 PM Stephen, Karl D <k.d.step...@hw.ac.uk> wrote: > > Thanks again, Kai. > > You are right, I was forgetting that WCONINJ would set the target rate and > that it's not quite sufficient. > > I've tried to minimise the effect of pressure on B_w by reducing the pressure > sensitivity but not too much in case I get numerical instabilities. > > With your suggestion I get pretty much the same result as you (but not > precisely the same). You don't show t=0 for one thing and there's a small > difference. > > Now if I increase Bw above 1.0 (to 1.02 as desired), I run into convergence > issues. Do you get that to work? > > With Bw=0.99, the pressure now drops (as indicate in my previous e-mail). > > I would really expect a stable answer regardless of Bw. > > Karl > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Opm <opm-boun...@opm-project.org> On Behalf Of Bao Kai > Sent: 15 March 2019 21:58 > To: opm@opm-project.org > Subject: Re: [Opm] Problem with injecting field voidage replacement > > Hi, Karl, > > It looks like there is a possible bug in the OPM implementation which > requires some WCONINJE keyword for a injector to make the injector work, even > if you have group control upon it. (something we need to investigate it) > > Anyway, I could not see big problem with your output data. When INJ is > working under group control, it looks like FVIR == FGPR, which means the > group control is honored in a good way. > > But INJ also has its own injection rate limit 11000 (provided with > WCONINJE) and it works under this limit at the beginning then switch to work > under VREP group control later. > > When you set B_w == 1.0 in PVTW, due to the existence of compressibility, the > final B_w will be slightly different from 1.0 depending the pressure you use. > > The FPR is decreasing in the beginning is because the voidage rate you are > injecting is smaller than the voidage rate you are producing, (FVIR < FVPR > due to existence of the WCONINJE injection rate limit.) > > One solution is just increase the rate limit in WCONINJE so that that limit > is so high and it will not limit much. The INJ will always work under group > VREP control. > > > I changed the schedule as follows, > > ``` > -- Production control > -- Well Status Control Oil Wat Gas Liq Resv BHP > -- name mode rate rate rate rate rate limit > -- ---- ------ ------ ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- > WCONPROD > PROD OPEN LRAT 3* 10000 1* 2000 / > / > > -- Injection control > -- Well Fluid Status Control Surf Resv BHP > -- NAME TYPE mode rate rate limit > -- ---- ----- ------ ------- ---- ---- ----- > WCONINJE > INJ WATER OPEN RATE 110000 1* 6000 / > / > -- GRO Fluid Control Surf Resv ReInj Voidage GRUP > -- NAME TYPE mode rate rate frac Frac CNTL > -- ---- ----- ------ ------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- > GCONINJE > -- FIELD WATER VREP 3* 1.0 NO / > G1 WATER VREP 3* 1.0 / > / > > > -- Number and size (days) of timesteps > TSTEP > 10*200 / > ``` > > Then the result is > > summary.x TUT1G1_SPE9. FPR FVIR FVPR > -- Days dd/mm/yyyy FPR FVIR FVPR > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 1.00 02/01/2020 4498.11 11499.4 11499.4 > 4.00 05/01/2020 4496.79 11499.3 11499.3 > 13.00 14/01/2020 4495.43 11499.4 11499.4 > 40.00 10/02/2020 4491.98 11499.5 11499.5 > 121.00 01/05/2020 4485.95 11497.8 11497.8 > 200.00 19/07/2020 4481.67 11491.7 11491.7 > 400.00 04/02/2021 4475.47 11424.2 11424.2 > 600.00 23/08/2021 4472.37 11292.4 11292.4 > 800.00 11/03/2022 4471.52 11110 11110 > 1000.00 27/09/2022 4472.95 10920.1 10920.1 > 1200.00 15/04/2023 4473.7 10764.3 10764.3 > 1400.00 01/11/2023 4474.59 10637.2 10637.2 > 1600.00 19/05/2024 4475.52 10539.8 10539.8 > 1800.00 05/12/2024 4476.48 10457.3 10457.3 > 2000.00 23/06/2025 4477.32 10386.9 10386.9 > > Please let me know if it is something you are looking for. > > Best, > Kai Bao > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 6:36 PM Stephen, Karl D <k.d.step...@hw.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > Hi Kai, > > For completeness, I removed the final WCONINJE keyword and the reference to > > FIELD in the GCONINJE keyword to be more consistent with the SPE9 case. > > Bw=1 again. > > > > -- Days dd/mm/yyyy FPR FVIR FVPR > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 0.00 01/01/2020 4500 0 -0 > > 1.00 02/01/2020 4495.02 11000 11499.4 > > 4.00 05/01/2020 4483.38 11000 11499.3 > > 13.00 14/01/2020 4450.86 11000 11499.4 > > 40.00 10/02/2020 4353.57 11000 11499.6 > > 97.50 07/04/2020 4149.48 11000.1 11499.5 > > 148.75 28/05/2020 3965.53 11000.2 11498.8 > > 200.00 19/07/2020 3781.38 11000.2 11497 > > 298.64 25/10/2020 3432.1 11000.4 11487 > > 400.00 04/02/2021 3086.74 11000.5 11468.6 > > 500.00 15/05/2021 2766.78 11000.6 11440.7 > > 600.00 23/08/2021 2505.6 11000.7 11358.2 > > 700.00 01/12/2021 2504.02 10997.4 10997.4 > > 800.00 11/03/2022 2518.26 10945.8 10945.8 > > 1000.00 27/09/2022 2557.13 10960.5 10960.4 > > 1200.00 15/04/2023 2573.25 10810.6 10810.6 > > 1400.00 01/11/2023 2574.08 10699.4 10699.4 > > 1600.00 19/05/2024 2559.59 10575.9 10576 > > 1800.00 05/12/2024 2562.13 10470.6 10470.6 > > 2000.00 23/06/2025 2564.31 10385.1 10385.1 > > 2200.00 09/01/2026 2566.22 10317.3 10317.3 > > > > The result is initially identical with FPR etc. but once water breaks > > through, there are differences. > > > > If anyone has another case that successfully tests field voidage > > replacement that would be great. > > > > Karl > > ________________________________ > > > > Heriot-Watt University is The Times & The Sunday Times International > > University of the Year 2018 > > > > Founded in 1821, Heriot-Watt is a leader in ideas and solutions. With > > campuses and students across the entire globe we span the world, delivering > > innovation and educational excellence in business, engineering, design and > > the physical, social and life sciences. This email is generated from the > > Heriot-Watt University Group, which includes: > > > > 1. Heriot-Watt University, a Scottish charity registered under number > > SC000278 > > 2. Edinburgh Business School a Charity Registered in Scotland, SC026900. > > Edinburgh Business School is a company limited by guarantee, registered in > > Scotland with registered number SC173556 and registered office at > > Heriot-Watt University Finance Office, Riccarton, Currie, Midlothian, EH14 > > 4AS > > 3. Heriot- Watt Services Limited (Oriam), Scotland's national > > performance centre for sport. Heriot-Watt Services Limited is a private > > limited company registered is Scotland with registered number SC271030 and > > registered office at Research & Enterprise Services Heriot-Watt University, > > Riccarton, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS. > > > > The contents (including any attachments) are confidential. If you are not > > the intended recipient of this e-mail, any disclosure, copying, > > distribution or use of its contents is strictly prohibited, and you should > > please notify the sender immediately and then delete it (including any > > attachments) from your system. > > _______________________________________________ > > Opm mailing list > > Opm@opm-project.org > > https://opm-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opm > _______________________________________________ > Opm mailing list > Opm@opm-project.org > https://opm-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opm
TUT1G1_SPE9.DATA
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ Opm mailing list Opm@opm-project.org https://opm-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opm
