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
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 transmissib
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 roc
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 unde
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 TRAN[XYZ]
...@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 :
> I don't think we'll be able to get away with a connection-based data
> structure for multipliers. I really
17. juni 2014 kl. 18:21 skrev Bård Skaflestad :
> I don't think we'll be able to get away with a connection-based data
> structure for multipliers. I really do think we need to preserve the
> per-cell nature of the multiplier arrays (and, generally, to store six
> values per cell).
I also think
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
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
