Add Support for RPTONLY and RPTONLYO
This former restricts summary output events to coincide with the report step while the latter (*O) turns off this restriction and makes summary output for every timestep.
This commit is contained in:
Bård Skaflestad
parent
114eec30c5
commit
d216de77ea
@ -475,6 +475,7 @@ if(ENABLE_ECL_OUTPUT)
|
||||
tests/summary_deck_non_constant_porosity.DATA
|
||||
tests/SUMMARY_EFF_FAC.DATA
|
||||
tests/SPE1CASE1.DATA
|
||||
tests/SPE1CASE1_RPTONLY.DATA
|
||||
tests/SPE1CASE1_SUMTHIN.DATA
|
||||
tests/SPE1CASE1.SMSPEC
|
||||
tests/SPE1CASE1A.SMSPEC
|
||||
|
||||
@ -603,6 +603,8 @@ namespace Opm
|
||||
void handleMXUNSUPP (const HandlerContext&, const ParseContext&, ErrorGuard&);
|
||||
void handleNODEPROP (const HandlerContext&, const ParseContext&, ErrorGuard&);
|
||||
void handleNUPCOL (const HandlerContext&, const ParseContext&, ErrorGuard&);
|
||||
void handleRPTONLY (const HandlerContext&, const ParseContext&, ErrorGuard&);
|
||||
void handleRPTONLYO (const HandlerContext&, const ParseContext&, ErrorGuard&);
|
||||
void handleRPTRST (const HandlerContext&, const ParseContext&, ErrorGuard&);
|
||||
void handleRPTSCHED (const HandlerContext&, const ParseContext&, ErrorGuard&);
|
||||
void handleTUNING (const HandlerContext&, const ParseContext&, ErrorGuard&);
|
||||
|
||||
@ -325,6 +325,10 @@ namespace Opm {
|
||||
|
||||
const std::optional<double>& sumthin() const;
|
||||
void update_sumthin(double sumthin);
|
||||
|
||||
bool rptonly() const;
|
||||
void rptonly(const bool only);
|
||||
|
||||
/*********************************************************************/
|
||||
|
||||
ptr_member<GConSale> gconsale;
|
||||
@ -461,6 +465,7 @@ namespace Opm {
|
||||
serializer(m_first_in_month);
|
||||
serializer(m_save_step);
|
||||
serializer(m_sumthin);
|
||||
serializer(this->m_rptonly);
|
||||
m_tuning.serializeOp(serializer);
|
||||
m_nupcol.serializeOp(serializer);
|
||||
m_oilvap.serializeOp(serializer);
|
||||
@ -493,6 +498,7 @@ namespace Opm {
|
||||
MessageLimits m_message_limits;
|
||||
Well::ProducerCMode m_whistctl_mode = Well::ProducerCMode::CMODE_UNDEFINED;
|
||||
std::optional<double> m_sumthin;
|
||||
bool m_rptonly{false};
|
||||
};
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -130,7 +130,9 @@ private:
|
||||
mutable bool sumthin_triggered_{false};
|
||||
double last_sumthin_output_{std::numeric_limits<double>::lowest()};
|
||||
|
||||
bool checkAndRecordIfSumthinTriggered(const int report_step, const double secs_elapsed) const;
|
||||
bool checkAndRecordIfSumthinTriggered(const int report_step,
|
||||
const double secs_elapsed) const;
|
||||
bool summaryAtRptOnly(const int report_step) const;
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
EclipseIO::Impl::Impl( const EclipseState& eclipseState,
|
||||
@ -214,7 +216,9 @@ bool EclipseIO::Impl::wantSummaryOutput(const int report_step,
|
||||
// generating summary output is the report step.
|
||||
this->checkAndRecordIfSumthinTriggered(report_step, secs_elapsed);
|
||||
|
||||
return !isSubstep || !this->sumthin_active_ || this->sumthin_triggered_;
|
||||
return !isSubstep
|
||||
|| (!this->summaryAtRptOnly(report_step)
|
||||
&& (!this->sumthin_active_ || this->sumthin_triggered_));
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
void EclipseIO::Impl::recordSummaryOutput(const double secs_elapsed)
|
||||
@ -234,6 +238,11 @@ bool EclipseIO::Impl::checkAndRecordIfSumthinTriggered(const int report_step,
|
||||
&& ! (secs_elapsed < this->last_sumthin_output_ + sumthin.value());
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
bool EclipseIO::Impl::summaryAtRptOnly(const int report_step) const
|
||||
{
|
||||
return this->schedule[report_step - 1].rptonly();
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
int_data: Writes key(string) and integers vector to INIT file as eclipse keywords
|
||||
- Key: Max 8 chars.
|
||||
|
||||
@ -789,6 +789,14 @@ namespace {
|
||||
this->snapshots.back().update_nupcol(nupcol);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
void Schedule::handleRPTONLY(const HandlerContext&, const ParseContext&, ErrorGuard&) {
|
||||
this->snapshots.back().rptonly(true);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
void Schedule::handleRPTONLYO(const HandlerContext&, const ParseContext&, ErrorGuard&) {
|
||||
this->snapshots.back().rptonly(false);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
void Schedule::handleRPTSCHED(const HandlerContext& handlerContext, const ParseContext& parseContext, ErrorGuard& errors) {
|
||||
this->snapshots.back().rpt_config.update( RPTConfig(handlerContext.keyword ));
|
||||
auto rst_config = this->snapshots.back().rst_config();
|
||||
@ -2024,6 +2032,8 @@ namespace {
|
||||
{ "MULTZ-" , &Schedule::handleMXUNSUPP },
|
||||
{ "NODEPROP", &Schedule::handleNODEPROP },
|
||||
{ "NUPCOL" , &Schedule::handleNUPCOL },
|
||||
{ "RPTONLY" , &Schedule::handleRPTONLY },
|
||||
{ "RPTONLYO", &Schedule::handleRPTONLYO },
|
||||
{ "RPTRST" , &Schedule::handleRPTRST },
|
||||
{ "RPTSCHED", &Schedule::handleRPTSCHED },
|
||||
{ "SAVE" , &Schedule::handleSAVE },
|
||||
|
||||
@ -208,6 +208,15 @@ void ScheduleState::update_sumthin(double sumthin) {
|
||||
this->m_sumthin = sumthin;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
bool ScheduleState::rptonly() const
|
||||
{
|
||||
return this->m_rptonly;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
void ScheduleState::rptonly(const bool only)
|
||||
{
|
||||
this->m_rptonly = only;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
bool ScheduleState::operator==(const ScheduleState& other) const {
|
||||
|
||||
@ -243,7 +252,8 @@ bool ScheduleState::operator==(const ScheduleState& other) const {
|
||||
this->groups == other.groups &&
|
||||
this->vfpprod == other.vfpprod &&
|
||||
this->vfpinj == other.vfpinj &&
|
||||
this->m_sumthin == other.m_sumthin;
|
||||
this->m_sumthin == other.m_sumthin &&
|
||||
this->m_rptonly == other.m_rptonly;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -265,6 +275,9 @@ ScheduleState ScheduleState::serializeObject() {
|
||||
ts.m_whistctl_mode = Well::ProducerCMode::THP;
|
||||
ts.target_wellpi = {{"WELL1", 1000}, {"WELL2", 2000}};
|
||||
|
||||
ts.m_sumthin = 12.345;
|
||||
ts.m_rptonly = true;
|
||||
|
||||
ts.pavg.update( PAvg::serializeObject() );
|
||||
ts.wtest_config.update( WellTestConfig::serializeObject() );
|
||||
ts.gconsump.update( GConSump::serializeObject() );
|
||||
|
||||
482
tests/SPE1CASE1_RPTONLY.DATA
Normal file
482
tests/SPE1CASE1_RPTONLY.DATA
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,482 @@
|
||||
-- This reservoir simulation deck is made available under the Open Database
|
||||
-- License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Any rights in
|
||||
-- individual contents of the database are licensed under the Database Contents
|
||||
-- License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/dbcl/1.0/
|
||||
|
||||
-- Copyright (C) 2015 Statoil
|
||||
|
||||
-- This simulation is based on the data given in
|
||||
-- 'Comparison of Solutions to a Three-Dimensional
|
||||
-- Black-Oil Reservoir Simulation Problem' by Aziz S. Odeh,
|
||||
-- Journal of Petroleum Technology, January 1981
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||||
------------------------ SPE1 - CASE 1 ------------------------------------
|
||||
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
RUNSPEC
|
||||
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
TITLE
|
||||
SPE1 - CASE 1
|
||||
|
||||
DIMENS
|
||||
10 10 3 /
|
||||
|
||||
-- The number of equilibration regions is inferred from the EQLDIMS
|
||||
-- keyword.
|
||||
EQLDIMS
|
||||
/
|
||||
|
||||
-- The number of PVTW tables is inferred from the TABDIMS keyword;
|
||||
-- when no data is included in the keyword the default values are used.
|
||||
TABDIMS
|
||||
/
|
||||
|
||||
OIL
|
||||
GAS
|
||||
WATER
|
||||
DISGAS
|
||||
-- As seen from figure 4 in Odeh, GOR is increasing with time,
|
||||
-- which means that dissolved gas is present
|
||||
|
||||
FIELD
|
||||
|
||||
START
|
||||
1 'JAN' 2015 /
|
||||
|
||||
WELLDIMS
|
||||
-- Item 1: maximum number of wells in the model
|
||||
-- - there are two wells in the problem; injector and producer
|
||||
-- Item 2: maximum number of grid blocks connected to any one well
|
||||
-- - must be one as the wells are located at specific grid blocks
|
||||
-- Item 3: maximum number of groups in the model
|
||||
-- - we are dealing with only one 'group'
|
||||
-- Item 4: maximum number of wells in any one group
|
||||
-- - there must be two wells in a group as there are two wells in total
|
||||
2 1 1 2 /
|
||||
|
||||
UNIFOUT
|
||||
|
||||
GRID
|
||||
|
||||
-- The INIT keyword is used to request an .INIT file. The .INIT file
|
||||
-- is written before the simulation actually starts, and contains grid
|
||||
-- properties and saturation tables as inferred from the input
|
||||
-- deck. There are no other keywords which can be used to configure
|
||||
-- exactly what is written to the .INIT file.
|
||||
INIT
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||||
NOECHO
|
||||
|
||||
DX
|
||||
-- There are in total 300 cells with length 1000ft in x-direction
|
||||
300*1000 /
|
||||
DY
|
||||
-- There are in total 300 cells with length 1000ft in y-direction
|
||||
300*1000 /
|
||||
DZ
|
||||
-- The layers are 20, 30 and 50 ft thick, in each layer there are 100 cells
|
||||
100*20 100*30 100*50 /
|
||||
|
||||
TOPS
|
||||
-- The depth of the top of each grid block
|
||||
100*8325 /
|
||||
|
||||
PORO
|
||||
-- Constant porosity of 0.3 throughout all 300 grid cells
|
||||
300*0.3 /
|
||||
|
||||
PERMX
|
||||
-- The layers have perm. 500mD, 50mD and 200mD, respectively.
|
||||
100*500 100*50 100*200 /
|
||||
|
||||
PERMY
|
||||
-- Equal to PERMX
|
||||
100*500 100*50 100*200 /
|
||||
|
||||
PERMZ
|
||||
-- Cannot find perm. in z-direction in Odeh's paper
|
||||
-- For the time being, we will assume PERMZ equal to PERMX and PERMY:
|
||||
100*500 100*50 100*200 /
|
||||
ECHO
|
||||
|
||||
PROPS
|
||||
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
PVTW
|
||||
-- Item 1: pressure reference (psia)
|
||||
-- Item 2: water FVF (rb per bbl or rb per stb)
|
||||
-- Item 3: water compressibility (psi^{-1})
|
||||
-- Item 4: water viscosity (cp)
|
||||
-- Item 5: water 'viscosibility' (psi^{-1})
|
||||
|
||||
-- Using values from Norne:
|
||||
-- In METRIC units:
|
||||
-- 277.0 1.038 4.67E-5 0.318 0.0 /
|
||||
-- In FIELD units:
|
||||
4017.55 1.038 3.22E-6 0.318 0.0 /
|
||||
|
||||
ROCK
|
||||
-- Item 1: reference pressure (psia)
|
||||
-- Item 2: rock compressibility (psi^{-1})
|
||||
|
||||
-- Using values from table 1 in Odeh:
|
||||
14.7 3E-6 /
|
||||
|
||||
SWOF
|
||||
-- Column 1: water saturation
|
||||
-- - this has been set to (almost) equally spaced values from 0.12 to 1
|
||||
-- Column 2: water relative permeability
|
||||
-- - generated from the Corey-type approx. formula
|
||||
-- the coeffisient is set to 10e-5, S_{orw}=0 and S_{wi}=0.12
|
||||
-- Column 3: oil relative permeability when only oil and water are present
|
||||
-- - we will use the same values as in column 3 in SGOF.
|
||||
-- This is not really correct, but since only the first
|
||||
-- two values are of importance, this does not really matter
|
||||
-- Column 4: water-oil capillary pressure (psi)
|
||||
|
||||
0.12 0 1 0
|
||||
0.18 4.64876033057851E-008 1 0
|
||||
0.24 0.000000186 0.997 0
|
||||
0.3 4.18388429752066E-007 0.98 0
|
||||
0.36 7.43801652892562E-007 0.7 0
|
||||
0.42 1.16219008264463E-006 0.35 0
|
||||
0.48 1.67355371900826E-006 0.2 0
|
||||
0.54 2.27789256198347E-006 0.09 0
|
||||
0.6 2.97520661157025E-006 0.021 0
|
||||
0.66 3.7654958677686E-006 0.01 0
|
||||
0.72 4.64876033057851E-006 0.001 0
|
||||
0.78 0.000005625 0.0001 0
|
||||
0.84 6.69421487603306E-006 0 0
|
||||
0.91 8.05914256198347E-006 0 0
|
||||
1 0.00001 0 0 /
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
SGOF
|
||||
-- Column 1: gas saturation
|
||||
-- Column 2: gas relative permeability
|
||||
-- Column 3: oil relative permeability when oil, gas and connate water are present
|
||||
-- Column 4: oil-gas capillary pressure (psi)
|
||||
-- - stated to be zero in Odeh's paper
|
||||
|
||||
-- Values in column 1-3 are taken from table 3 in Odeh's paper:
|
||||
0 0 1 0
|
||||
0.001 0 1 0
|
||||
0.02 0 0.997 0
|
||||
0.05 0.005 0.980 0
|
||||
0.12 0.025 0.700 0
|
||||
0.2 0.075 0.350 0
|
||||
0.25 0.125 0.200 0
|
||||
0.3 0.190 0.090 0
|
||||
0.4 0.410 0.021 0
|
||||
0.45 0.60 0.010 0
|
||||
0.5 0.72 0.001 0
|
||||
0.6 0.87 0.0001 0
|
||||
0.7 0.94 0.000 0
|
||||
0.85 0.98 0.000 0
|
||||
0.88 0.984 0.000 0 /
|
||||
--1.00 1.0 0.000 0 /
|
||||
-- Warning from Eclipse: first sat. value in SWOF + last sat. value in SGOF
|
||||
-- must not be greater than 1, but Eclipse still runs
|
||||
-- Flow needs the sum to be excactly 1 so I added a row with gas sat. = 0.88
|
||||
-- The corresponding krg value was estimated by assuming linear rel. between
|
||||
-- gas sat. and krw. between gas sat. 0.85 and 1.00 (the last two values given)
|
||||
|
||||
DENSITY
|
||||
-- Density (lb per ft³) at surface cond. of
|
||||
-- oil, water and gas, respectively (in that order)
|
||||
|
||||
-- Using values from Norne:
|
||||
-- In METRIC units:
|
||||
-- 859.5 1033.0 0.854 /
|
||||
-- In FIELD units:
|
||||
53.66 64.49 0.0533 /
|
||||
|
||||
PVDG
|
||||
-- Column 1: gas phase pressure (psia)
|
||||
-- Column 2: gas formation volume factor (rb per Mscf)
|
||||
-- - in Odeh's paper the units are said to be given in rb per bbl,
|
||||
-- but this is assumed to be a mistake: FVF-values in Odeh's paper
|
||||
-- are given in rb per scf, not rb per bbl. This will be in
|
||||
-- agreement with conventions
|
||||
-- Column 3: gas viscosity (cP)
|
||||
|
||||
-- Using values from lower right table in Odeh's table 2:
|
||||
14.700 166.666 0.008000
|
||||
264.70 12.0930 0.009600
|
||||
514.70 6.27400 0.011200
|
||||
1014.7 3.19700 0.014000
|
||||
2014.7 1.61400 0.018900
|
||||
2514.7 1.29400 0.020800
|
||||
3014.7 1.08000 0.022800
|
||||
4014.7 0.81100 0.026800
|
||||
5014.7 0.64900 0.030900
|
||||
9014.7 0.38600 0.047000 /
|
||||
|
||||
PVTO
|
||||
-- Column 1: dissolved gas-oil ratio (Mscf per stb)
|
||||
-- Column 2: bubble point pressure (psia)
|
||||
-- Column 3: oil FVF for saturated oil (rb per stb)
|
||||
-- Column 4: oil viscosity for saturated oil (cP)
|
||||
|
||||
-- Use values from top left table in Odeh's table 2:
|
||||
0.0010 14.7 1.0620 1.0400 /
|
||||
0.0905 264.7 1.1500 0.9750 /
|
||||
0.1800 514.7 1.2070 0.9100 /
|
||||
0.3710 1014.7 1.2950 0.8300 /
|
||||
0.6360 2014.7 1.4350 0.6950 /
|
||||
0.7750 2514.7 1.5000 0.6410 /
|
||||
0.9300 3014.7 1.5650 0.5940 /
|
||||
1.2700 4014.7 1.6950 0.5100
|
||||
9014.7 1.5790 0.7400 /
|
||||
1.6180 5014.7 1.8270 0.4490
|
||||
9014.7 1.7370 0.6310 /
|
||||
-- It is required to enter data for undersaturated oil for the highest GOR
|
||||
-- (i.e. the last row) in the PVTO table.
|
||||
-- In order to fulfill this requirement, values for oil FVF and viscosity
|
||||
-- at 9014.7psia and GOR=1.618 for undersaturated oil have been approximated:
|
||||
-- It has been assumed that there is a linear relation between the GOR
|
||||
-- and the FVF when keeping the pressure constant at 9014.7psia.
|
||||
-- From Odeh we know that (at 9014.7psia) the FVF is 2.357 at GOR=2.984
|
||||
-- for saturated oil and that the FVF is 1.579 at GOR=1.27 for undersaturated oil,
|
||||
-- so it is possible to use the assumption described above.
|
||||
-- An equivalent approximation for the viscosity has been used.
|
||||
/
|
||||
REGIONS
|
||||
|
||||
FIPNUM
|
||||
300*1 /
|
||||
|
||||
SOLUTION
|
||||
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
EQUIL
|
||||
-- Item 1: datum depth (ft)
|
||||
-- Item 2: pressure at datum depth (psia)
|
||||
-- - Odeh's table 1 says that initial reservoir pressure is
|
||||
-- 4800 psi at 8400ft, which explains choice of item 1 and 2
|
||||
-- Item 3: depth of water-oil contact (ft)
|
||||
-- - chosen to be directly under the reservoir
|
||||
-- Item 4: oil-water capillary pressure at the water oil contact (psi)
|
||||
-- - given to be 0 in Odeh's paper
|
||||
-- Item 5: depth of gas-oil contact (ft)
|
||||
-- - chosen to be directly above the reservoir
|
||||
-- Item 6: gas-oil capillary pressure at gas-oil contact (psi)
|
||||
-- - given to be 0 in Odeh's paper
|
||||
-- Item 7: RSVD-table
|
||||
-- Item 8: RVVD-table
|
||||
-- Item 9: Set to 0 as this is the only value supported by OPM
|
||||
|
||||
-- Item #: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
||||
8400 4800 8450 0 8300 0 1 0 0 /
|
||||
|
||||
RSVD
|
||||
-- Dissolved GOR is initially constant with depth through the reservoir.
|
||||
-- The reason is that the initial reservoir pressure given is higher
|
||||
---than the bubble point presssure of 4014.7psia, meaning that there is no
|
||||
-- free gas initially present.
|
||||
8300 1.270
|
||||
8450 1.270 /
|
||||
|
||||
SUMMARY
|
||||
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
DATE
|
||||
|
||||
RPR__NUM
|
||||
/
|
||||
|
||||
RUNSUM
|
||||
FMWPA
|
||||
FMWIA
|
||||
|
||||
-- 1a) Oil rate vs time
|
||||
FOPR
|
||||
-- Field Oil Production Rate
|
||||
|
||||
-- 1b) GOR vs time
|
||||
WGOR
|
||||
-- Well Gas-Oil Ratio
|
||||
'PROD'
|
||||
/
|
||||
-- Using FGOR instead of WGOR:PROD results in the same graph
|
||||
FGOR
|
||||
|
||||
-- 2a) Pressures of the cell where the injector and producer are located
|
||||
BPR
|
||||
1 1 1 /
|
||||
10 10 3 /
|
||||
/
|
||||
|
||||
-- 2b) Gas saturation at grid points given in Odeh's paper
|
||||
BGSAT
|
||||
1 1 1 /
|
||||
1 1 2 /
|
||||
1 1 3 /
|
||||
10 1 1 /
|
||||
10 1 2 /
|
||||
10 1 3 /
|
||||
10 10 1 /
|
||||
10 10 2 /
|
||||
10 10 3 /
|
||||
/
|
||||
|
||||
-- In order to compare Eclipse with Flow:
|
||||
WBHP
|
||||
'INJ'
|
||||
'PROD'
|
||||
/
|
||||
WGIR
|
||||
'INJ'
|
||||
'PROD'
|
||||
/
|
||||
WGIT
|
||||
'INJ'
|
||||
'PROD'
|
||||
/
|
||||
WGPR
|
||||
'INJ'
|
||||
'PROD'
|
||||
/
|
||||
WGPT
|
||||
'INJ'
|
||||
'PROD'
|
||||
/
|
||||
WOIR
|
||||
'INJ'
|
||||
'PROD'
|
||||
/
|
||||
WOIT
|
||||
'INJ'
|
||||
'PROD'
|
||||
/
|
||||
WOPR
|
||||
'INJ'
|
||||
'PROD'
|
||||
/
|
||||
WOPT
|
||||
'INJ'
|
||||
'PROD'
|
||||
/
|
||||
WWIR
|
||||
'INJ'
|
||||
'PROD'
|
||||
/
|
||||
WWIT
|
||||
'INJ'
|
||||
'PROD'
|
||||
/
|
||||
WWPR
|
||||
'INJ'
|
||||
'PROD'
|
||||
/
|
||||
WWPT
|
||||
'INJ'
|
||||
'PROD'
|
||||
/
|
||||
SCHEDULE
|
||||
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||||
RPTSCHED
|
||||
'PRES' 'SGAS' 'RS' 'WELLS' 'WELSPECS' /
|
||||
|
||||
RPTRST
|
||||
'BASIC=1' /
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
-- If no resolution (i.e. case 1), the two following lines must be added:
|
||||
DRSDT
|
||||
0 /
|
||||
-- if DRSDT is set to 0, GOR cannot rise and free gas does not
|
||||
-- dissolve in undersaturated oil -> constant bubble point pressure
|
||||
|
||||
WELSPECS
|
||||
-- Item #: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
||||
'PROD' 'G1' 10 10 8400 'OIL' /
|
||||
'INJ' 'G1' 1 1 8335 'GAS' /
|
||||
'RFTP' 'G1' 10 10 8400 'OIL' /
|
||||
'RFTI' 'G1' 9 9 8400 'WATER' /
|
||||
/
|
||||
|
||||
-- Coordinates in item 3-4 are retrieved from Odeh's figure 1 and 2
|
||||
-- Note that the depth at the midpoint of the well grid blocks
|
||||
-- has been used as reference depth for bottom hole pressure in item 5
|
||||
|
||||
COMPDAT
|
||||
-- Item #: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
||||
'PROD' 10 10 3 3 'OPEN' 1* 1* 0.5 /
|
||||
'RFTP' 10 10 3 3 'OPEN' 1* 1* 0.5 /
|
||||
'RFTI' 9 9 3 3 'OPEN' 1* 1* 0.5 /
|
||||
'INJ' 1 1 1 1 'OPEN' 1* 1* 0.5 /
|
||||
/
|
||||
-- Coordinates in item 2-5 are retreived from Odeh's figure 1 and 2
|
||||
-- Item 9 is the well bore internal diameter,
|
||||
-- the radius is given to be 0.25ft in Odeh's paper
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
WCONPROD
|
||||
-- Item #:1 2 3 4 5 9
|
||||
'PROD' 'OPEN' 'ORAT' 20000 4* 1000 /
|
||||
'RFTP' 'SHUT' 'ORAT' 20000 4* 1000 /
|
||||
/
|
||||
-- It is stated in Odeh's paper that the maximum oil prod. rate
|
||||
-- is 20 000stb per day which explains the choice of value in item 4.
|
||||
-- The items > 4 are defaulted with the exception of item 9,
|
||||
-- the BHP lower limit, which is given to be 1000psia in Odeh's paper
|
||||
|
||||
WCONINJE
|
||||
-- Item #:1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
||||
'INJ' 'GAS' 'OPEN' 'RATE' 100000 1* 9014 /
|
||||
'RFTI' 'GAS' 'SHUT' 'RATE' 0 /
|
||||
/
|
||||
|
||||
-- Stated in Odeh that gas inj. rate (item 5) is 100MMscf per day
|
||||
-- BHP upper limit (item 7) should not be exceeding the highest
|
||||
-- pressure in the PVT table=9014.7psia (default is 100 000psia)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
WELOPEN
|
||||
'RFTP' OPEN /
|
||||
'RFTI' OPEN /
|
||||
/
|
||||
|
||||
WCONHIST
|
||||
'RFTP' 'OPEN' 'RESV' 0 /
|
||||
/
|
||||
|
||||
WCONINJE
|
||||
'RFTI' 'GAS' 'OPEN' 'RATE' 0 /
|
||||
/
|
||||
|
||||
WELOPEN
|
||||
'RFTP' 'SHUT' /
|
||||
'RFTI' 'STOP' /
|
||||
/
|
||||
|
||||
RPTONLY
|
||||
|
||||
DATES
|
||||
1 'FEB' 2015 /
|
||||
1 'MAR' 2015 /
|
||||
1 'APR' 2015 /
|
||||
1 'MAY' 2015 /
|
||||
1 'JUN' 2015 /
|
||||
1 'JLY' 2015 /
|
||||
1 'AUG' 2015 /
|
||||
1 'SEP' 2015 /
|
||||
1 'OCT' 2015 /
|
||||
1 'NOV' 2015 /
|
||||
1 'DEC' 2015 /
|
||||
1 'JAN' 2016 /
|
||||
/
|
||||
|
||||
RPTONLYO
|
||||
|
||||
DATES
|
||||
1 'APR' 2016 /
|
||||
/
|
||||
|
||||
END
|
||||
@ -239,3 +239,77 @@ BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(RUN_SUMTHIN) {
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(RUN_RPTONLY) {
|
||||
const Deck deck = Parser{}.parseFile("SPE1CASE1_RPTONLY.DATA");
|
||||
const EclipseState state(deck);
|
||||
Schedule schedule(deck, state, std::make_shared<Python>());
|
||||
const SummaryConfig summary_config(deck, schedule, state.fieldProps(), state.aquifer());
|
||||
|
||||
msim msim(state);
|
||||
|
||||
msim.well_rate("PROD", data::Rates::opt::oil, prod_opr);
|
||||
msim.well_rate("RFTP", data::Rates::opt::oil, prod_rft);
|
||||
msim.well_rate("RFTI", data::Rates::opt::wat, inj_rfti);
|
||||
msim.well_rate("INJ", data::Rates::opt::gas, inj_inj);
|
||||
msim.solution("PRESSURE", pressure);
|
||||
{
|
||||
const WorkArea work_area("test_msim");
|
||||
EclipseIO io(state, state.getInputGrid(), schedule, summary_config);
|
||||
|
||||
// TSTEP = N*7
|
||||
msim.run(schedule, io, false);
|
||||
|
||||
// clang-format off
|
||||
const auto expect_smry_time = std::vector<double> {
|
||||
// RPTONLY
|
||||
31.0, // 2015-02-01
|
||||
59.0, // 2015-03-01
|
||||
90.0, // 2015-04-01
|
||||
120.0, // 2015-05-01
|
||||
151.0, // 2015-06-01
|
||||
181.0, // 2015-07-01
|
||||
212.0, // 2015-08-01
|
||||
243.0, // 2015-09-01
|
||||
273.0, // 2015-10-01
|
||||
304.0, // 2015-11-01
|
||||
334.0, // 2015-12-01
|
||||
365.0, // 2016-01-01
|
||||
|
||||
// RPTONLYO (turn off 'RPTONLY')
|
||||
// => summary output every timestep (DT = 7 days)
|
||||
372.0, 379.0, 386.0, 393.0, 400.0, 407.0, 414.0,
|
||||
421.0, 428.0, 435.0, 442.0, 449.0, 456.0,
|
||||
};
|
||||
// clang-format on
|
||||
|
||||
{
|
||||
const auto smry = EclIO::ESmry("SPE1CASE1_RPTONLY");
|
||||
const auto& time = smry.get("TIME");
|
||||
const auto& dates = smry.dates();
|
||||
const auto report_date = TimeStampUTC(2016, 1, 1);
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
Verify that:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Summary output happens at expected times.
|
||||
2. The exact report date 2016-01-01 is present.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
|
||||
const auto nstep = expect_smry_time.size();
|
||||
BOOST_REQUIRE_EQUAL(time.size(), nstep);
|
||||
for (auto step = 0*nstep; step < nstep; ++step) {
|
||||
BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE(time[step], expect_smry_time[step], 1.0e-10);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
const auto report_found =
|
||||
std::any_of(dates.begin(), dates.begin() + nstep - 1,
|
||||
[&report_date](const auto date)
|
||||
{
|
||||
return report_date == TimeStampUTC(std::chrono::system_clock::to_time_t(date));
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
BOOST_CHECK_MESSAGE(report_found, "Expected report date missing");
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user