MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383163641 · doi:10.1016/j.geoen.2023.212056

A very high order Flux Reconstruction (FR) method for the numerical simulation of 1-D compositional fluid flow model in petroleum reservoirs

2023· article· en· W4383163641 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Maria Eduarda Santos Galindo, Igor Vasconcelos Lacerda, G. Galindez-Ramirez, P Lyra, Darlan Karlo Elisiário de Carvalho

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoenergy Science and Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidade Federal de PernambucoConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoAgência Nacional do Petróleo, Gás Natural e BiocombustíveisCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorEnergi Simulation
KeywordsPartial differential equationConservation of massFluid dynamicsFugacityFlux limiterFlow (mathematics)Multiphase flowReservoir simulationApplied mathematicsTwo-phase flowPetroleum engineeringComputer scienceMechanicsMathematicsGeologyThermodynamicsPhysicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Compositional reservoir simulation is an extremely important tool for modeling the fluid flow in complex petroleum reservoirs, as in cases where the reservoir fluid is volatile and composed of several pseudo-components with distinct characteristics, or reservoirs that require the use of enhanced oil recovery process. For these cases, simpler black-oil models are not suitable. The compositional model involves the solution of a large system of partial differential equations, that comprises the mass conservation, the Darcy’s law and the fugacity constraints. However, the high number of equations and constraints render the compositional problems extremely complex and computationally demanding solutions. To improve accuracy and reduce the high computational costs, one can use higher than first or even second-order methods to approximate the advective flux terms in the hyperbolic conservation laws that describe the multicomponent transport in the reservoir. Those very high-order schemes can replace low-order approaches, such as the First Order Upwind (FOU) method, which is traditionally used in commercial petroleum reservoir simulators (CMG, 2019; ECLIPSE, 2022), obtaining more accurate solutions with reduced computational cost. In this work, we consider a three-phase and isothermal fluid flow of water, oil and gas and assume that there is no mass transfer between the water and the hydrocarbon phases. Physical dispersion and capillary effects are neglected. To solve the system of Partial Differential Equations (PDEs), we used the classical IMPEC (Implicit Pressure Explicit Composition) approach and, to model the complex phase behavior, we used the Peng–Robinson equation of state (PR-EOS). The classical Two Point Flux Approximation (TPFA) method is used to spatially discretize the diffusion terms in the pressure equation. For the first time in literature the very high order Flux Reconstruction (FR) method is adapted for the numerical simulation of the compositional model in petroleum reservoirs. The FR method is a numerical scheme employed to discretize the hyperbolic conservation laws using general grids. To avoid spurious oscillations in the vicinity of solution discontinuities, the h-MLP (hierarchical Multi-dimensional Limiting Process) is applied in the reconstruction stage. For the time integration, we have used the third-order Runge–Kutta approach. To appraise the robustness of our formulation, we have solved some one-dimensional benchmark problems found in literature and compared the FR solution with the FOU method and with the second-order Monotonic Upstream-Centered Scheme for Conservation Laws (MUSCL) method. From our results, the FR method has shown improved accuracy, efficiency and capability of detecting sharper shocks when compared to the other methods that we have considered for the numerical modeling of the compositional flow in the present paper.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoenergy Science and EngineeringSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207