Comparison of an impec and a semi-implicit formulation for compositional reservoir simulation
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2014 |
Outros Autores: | , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-66322014000400016 |
Resumo: | In compositional reservoir simulation, a set of non-linear partial differential equations must be solved. In this work, two numerical formulations are compared. The first formulation is based on an implicit pressure and explicit composition (IMPEC) procedure, and the second formulation uses an implicit pressure and implicit saturation (IMPSAT). The main goal of this work is to compare the formulations in terms of computational times for solving 2D and 3D compositional reservoir simulation case studies. In the comparison, both UDS (Upwind difference scheme) and third order TVD schemes were used. The computational results for the aforementioned formulations and the two interpolation functions are presented for several case studies involving homogeneous and heterogeneous reservoirs. Based on our comparison of IMPEC and IMPSAT formulations using several case studies presented in this work, the IMPSAT formulation was faster than the IMPEC formulation. |
id |
ABEQ-1_4e7b74287ca91fa7975f002735ff0c12 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S0104-66322014000400016 |
network_acronym_str |
ABEQ-1 |
network_name_str |
Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Comparison of an impec and a semi-implicit formulation for compositional reservoir simulationCompositional reservoir simulationSegregated formulationIMPECIMPSATFinite-volume methodIn compositional reservoir simulation, a set of non-linear partial differential equations must be solved. In this work, two numerical formulations are compared. The first formulation is based on an implicit pressure and explicit composition (IMPEC) procedure, and the second formulation uses an implicit pressure and implicit saturation (IMPSAT). The main goal of this work is to compare the formulations in terms of computational times for solving 2D and 3D compositional reservoir simulation case studies. In the comparison, both UDS (Upwind difference scheme) and third order TVD schemes were used. The computational results for the aforementioned formulations and the two interpolation functions are presented for several case studies involving homogeneous and heterogeneous reservoirs. Based on our comparison of IMPEC and IMPSAT formulations using several case studies presented in this work, the IMPSAT formulation was faster than the IMPEC formulation.Brazilian Society of Chemical Engineering2014-12-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-66322014000400016Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering v.31 n.4 2014reponame:Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineeringinstname:Associação Brasileira de Engenharia Química (ABEQ)instacron:ABEQ10.1590/0104-6632.20140314s00003084info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessFernandes,B. R. B.Varavei,A.Marcondes,F.Sepehrnoori,K.eng2014-11-14T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0104-66322014000400016Revistahttps://www.scielo.br/j/bjce/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phprgiudici@usp.br||rgiudici@usp.br1678-43830104-6632opendoar:2014-11-14T00:00Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering - Associação Brasileira de Engenharia Química (ABEQ)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Comparison of an impec and a semi-implicit formulation for compositional reservoir simulation |
title |
Comparison of an impec and a semi-implicit formulation for compositional reservoir simulation |
spellingShingle |
Comparison of an impec and a semi-implicit formulation for compositional reservoir simulation Fernandes,B. R. B. Compositional reservoir simulation Segregated formulation IMPEC IMPSAT Finite-volume method |
title_short |
Comparison of an impec and a semi-implicit formulation for compositional reservoir simulation |
title_full |
Comparison of an impec and a semi-implicit formulation for compositional reservoir simulation |
title_fullStr |
Comparison of an impec and a semi-implicit formulation for compositional reservoir simulation |
title_full_unstemmed |
Comparison of an impec and a semi-implicit formulation for compositional reservoir simulation |
title_sort |
Comparison of an impec and a semi-implicit formulation for compositional reservoir simulation |
author |
Fernandes,B. R. B. |
author_facet |
Fernandes,B. R. B. Varavei,A. Marcondes,F. Sepehrnoori,K. |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Varavei,A. Marcondes,F. Sepehrnoori,K. |
author2_role |
author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Fernandes,B. R. B. Varavei,A. Marcondes,F. Sepehrnoori,K. |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Compositional reservoir simulation Segregated formulation IMPEC IMPSAT Finite-volume method |
topic |
Compositional reservoir simulation Segregated formulation IMPEC IMPSAT Finite-volume method |
description |
In compositional reservoir simulation, a set of non-linear partial differential equations must be solved. In this work, two numerical formulations are compared. The first formulation is based on an implicit pressure and explicit composition (IMPEC) procedure, and the second formulation uses an implicit pressure and implicit saturation (IMPSAT). The main goal of this work is to compare the formulations in terms of computational times for solving 2D and 3D compositional reservoir simulation case studies. In the comparison, both UDS (Upwind difference scheme) and third order TVD schemes were used. The computational results for the aforementioned formulations and the two interpolation functions are presented for several case studies involving homogeneous and heterogeneous reservoirs. Based on our comparison of IMPEC and IMPSAT formulations using several case studies presented in this work, the IMPSAT formulation was faster than the IMPEC formulation. |
publishDate |
2014 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2014-12-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-66322014000400016 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-66322014000400016 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1590/0104-6632.20140314s00003084 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Brazilian Society of Chemical Engineering |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Brazilian Society of Chemical Engineering |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering v.31 n.4 2014 reponame:Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering instname:Associação Brasileira de Engenharia Química (ABEQ) instacron:ABEQ |
instname_str |
Associação Brasileira de Engenharia Química (ABEQ) |
instacron_str |
ABEQ |
institution |
ABEQ |
reponame_str |
Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering |
collection |
Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering - Associação Brasileira de Engenharia Química (ABEQ) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
rgiudici@usp.br||rgiudici@usp.br |
_version_ |
1754213174625697792 |