Mathematical Considerations Introduction An enormous volume of literature exists on different methods of constructing a reservoir simulator. The vast majority of reservoirengineers, however, will use the pro- gram provided by their company. Typically, this is one of about a half dozen commercially available programs, which are marketed internationally In the past, many of, the major companies have had their research depart ments write proprietary programs. With the current down- sizing or rightsizing” trend in the industry, its likely few companies will continue to maintain their current pro- ‘grams or initiate new ones. Since readers are more likely to be using commercial ly avallabie products, an extended discussion on the mathematics of constructing a simulator is, in practical terms, of limited benefit. All that is required of users of this software is: sufficient background knowledge to understand the limitations of the simulator an understanding of the different simulation solution options knowing how to adjust matrix solvers to achieve adequate performance knowing that wells and the associated equations have certain limitations, which sometimes require changes in approach a minimum understanding of timestep control knowing how group and well cantrois affect simu- lator performance Tne following discussion outlines the basics and concentrates on points where user intervention may be required. This may be regarded as a mixed blessing. The material is presented in a descriptive form. Of course, this means some of the detailed mathematics underiying this material are not shown, although there is worth- while material in detailed discussions of the mathemat- ies and solutions,Practica! Reservoir Simulation The author participated in a course taught by Dr. A. Settar, which required a simulator be built as. class pro ect, This prablem set had a reputation for being long, involved, and difficult, f the reader has career plans for significant exposure (© simulation, going through this process is beneficial, t provides a better understanding bf how a simulator works but 3 requires a major time commitment, Reading pages of differential equations and matrices is nvt the same as actually programming a simulator. This level of detail would consume another ook and would leave much of the practical application unexplained, A number of good textbooks on these issues have been published ‘The cnaterial in this book has been prepared along a development outline to maintain a logical progression. The purpose of certain points may vary. In some cases it is designed to explain how things work. In other cases. a description is intended to indicate a limitation or an option or switch commonly available on commercial sim ulators. Since the purpose of each section is not always obvious, it is jaclicated! ia parentheses. The intent & to provide sufficient material to allow the reader an appre- Ciation of critical issues, leaving the detailed mathemati- cal explanation to others, Detailed derivations (formulation) The development of the partial differential equar tions is the same for a reservoir simulator as for pressure transient analysis. The equations are used in both Cartesian and radia) coosdinates for reservoir simula tion. This material is best covered in Aziz and Settar’s Petroleum Reservoir Simulation, published by the Academic Press.' Nevertheless, @ quick outline will be made in the following ‘The three main elements to the development of the partial differential equation, which govern reservoir sienataos, are conservation of mass a transport law an equation of state Conservation of mass (basic formulation) ‘The differential equation in Cartesian coordinates is developed by considering a smail block, depicted in Figure 2-1 atwelt aea=A AM eeu) ax Fig 2-1 Representative Element ‘The equation is then developed as follows: In AM, (la) Out=A(M, +AM,) (2b) Storage = 4 At(p,, - p,0,) 210) Source/Sink (id) Combining these yields: (4+ aM. Md 22) ae re (22) 4 BE (P.O, BO), Ae aw ar In the Limit as Ax — 0 and Ay -+ 0 one derives: 2a. Bel. g es ae Ey ‘This conservation of mass is then expanded in pwo ways. First, a description of the behavior of the fluids at different pressures is required—an equation of state; and, second, an interblock transport relation js required— Darcy's LawEquation of state or PVT behavior (formulation) The material balance in reservoir simulators is usualy done on the following basis For gas.the real gas law is used. The liquid phase has dissolved gas, which isa in ear function of pressure (black oil) Water is characterized 2s aliquid af tow com: pressibility, which isa linear function of pressure Transport equation—Darcy’s Law (basic formulation) The current understanding of fluid low through porous media is derived from work by a French civil eng reer named Henri Darcy. He was designing sand filters for a drinking water supply in Lyons. His experiment looked something like the apparatus shown in Figure 2-2. Apparatus to filter water with sand manometer ig 2-2 Darcy Apparatus Mathematical Consideration He found the pressure drop across the sand pack is a linear function of an intrinsic sand property, the applied pptessure drop, the length of the sand pack, ancl the cross: sectional area of flow It was inversely affected by viscos iy This empirical observation has become known as Darcy’ Law and is shown in Equation 2.4 ka 9 wax a) Examples of different materials that have been tested are shown in Figure 2-3, Note the law also applies to the flow of fluid in rocks. The intrinsic property of the rock is, termed permeability Note there is a breakdown at high Reynolds qurabers. This is related to turbulence and iner tial effects and occurs with high velocity flows Above R=10, Deviation com straight line | Friction Factor, = Unconsotdated Sand Reynolds Number, 7 Fig 2-3 Darey’s Lau—Various Porous Media Concept of a tensar (limitation) ‘The example shown in Figure 2-3 was for one dimen- sion. In fact, not all materials have perfectly homoge neous permeability, and not all potential gradients are applied along Cartesian axes. The flow in a medium can bbe calculated exactly under these conditions, since per tmeability is mathematically a tensor. The permeability in any given direction can be determined by an ellipse based on the minimum and maximum permeability directions. This directional change in permeability is not directly programmed into reservoir simulators, as described in the previous development, This error is 5Practical Reservoir inherent in the formulation of simulators, as they are cur rently built, This level of error is considered tolerable in the majority of cases. Nine-point implementations (limitation/alterate formulation) There are certain cases where this error is not acceptable. Probably the most common is in thermal simulation where adverse mobility ratios (ie. much greater than one} exist in displacements. Gas (stearn) displacement of viscous oit—ie,, heavy oilis a classic example, The converse, where oil dispiaces gas, does not cause problems In this case, the differential equations ate formed dit ferently: flow is allowed diagonally between grid blocks, as shown in Figure 2-4 Formation of matrix solution (basic formulation) Returning to the basic diflerential equation ia Equation 2.3, the left sige represents spatial terms and includes pressure gradients and permeability: The righ side represents change in the material in the block for time and pressure trends. The solution to this ea ot going 10 be solved exactly: Approximate solutions ate going to be developed at certain fixed points in space and, as the simulator marches through certain fixed points, in time, Thus, two discretizations oceus, one in space and the other in time ‘The discrete points in space are arbitrarily chosen using a grid. Note that two types of grids can be chosen one is called a block centered grid and the other a point cenvered grid. The boundary conditions for these two types of grids are different; however, all of the commer: cial simulators use blockcentered grids. A black: centered grid is shown in Figure 2-5 and a point. centered grid is shown in Figure 2-6. Note the author’. Giagram of @ pointcentered grid ditfers stightly from, those commonly shown in the literatue, This és deliber ate. The points are intended to be representative of reser voir volumes for both grid systems. The essential differ- ence is at the edge of the grid. With the point-centered grid, the nodes fall on the edge and, as a result, the boundary conditions are applied differently. Five-point Formulation . . . . . Nine-point Formulation Fig. 2-4 Computational Motecule—Nine-Point implementation Fig. 2-5 Block Centered GridPractical Reservar Simulation Inherent in the formulation of simulators, as they are cu rently built, This level of error is considered! tolerable in the majority of cases Nine-point implementations (limitation/alternate formulation) ‘There are certain cases witere this ertor is not acceptable. Probably the most common is in thermal simulation where adverse mobility ratios (ie. much xteater than one) exist in displacements Gas (steam) displacement of viscous oil—ie., heavy oil—is a classic example, The converse, where oil dispiaces gas, does not cause problems. In this case, the differential equations ar ferently: flow is allowed diagonally between gf as shown in Figure 2-4? med dit. id blocks, Formation of matrix solution (basic formulation) Returning to the basic differential equation in Equation 2.3, the lett side represents spatial terms and Includes pressure gradients and peemeabitiy The right side represents change in the material in the block tor time and pressure trends, The solution to this equration is hot going 16 be solved exactly, Approximate solutions age going to be developed at certain fixed points in space and, as the simulator marches through certain fixed, points, in time, Thus, two discretizations occur, one in, space and the other in time. Tre discrete points in space are arbitrarily chosen using a grid. Note that two types of grids can be chosen. one is called a block-centered grid and the other a point centered grid. The boundary conditions for these two types of grids are different; however, all of the commer: cial simulators use blockcentered grids. A block centered grid is shown in Figure 2-5 amt a point centered grid is shown in Figure 2-6, Note the authors diagram of a pointcentered grid differs slightly from those commonly shown ia the literature, This is deliber: ate. The points are intended co be representative of reser voir volumes for both grid systems. The essential differ: cence is at the edge of the grid, With the pointentered grid, the nodes fall on the edge, and, as a result, the boundary conditions are applied difterently. Five-point Formulation . . . . . Nine-point Formulation Fig. 2-4 Computarionat Molecule—Nine-Foint Implementation Fig, 2-5 Block Centered GridFig, 2-6 PrintCenterod Grid Time discretization is accomplished with timesteps. These are also arbitrarily chosen Tre accuracy of the solution will be affected by both the size of the grid blocks and the length of the timesteps. Smaller grid blocks and shorter timesteps provide more accurate solutions. In order to handle she farge volumes of computation- al dats, matrices are used to solve these problems. The discretization is accomplished as shown in Equation 25. ( ‘The solution at time n + | is on the left side. On the far lefttiand side are all of the spatial terms, which are made up of permeability and grid-block dimensions. ‘The next term, on the righthand side, represents the length of the timestep and the previous solution (pres- sures aad grié-block production rates), which com- pletes the information necessary to project the solution at the end of the timestep, ‘The initia solution or pressures must be set to start the simulation and a series of grid-block values are obtained from the simulator at discrete points in time. Errors and spatial discretization (limitation) Using the element described with 2 Taylor series expansion, it is possible to show the error involved in discretization is related to the spacing of the grid. For a Mathematical Considerations the error is proportional te the spacing ular grid, the error is directly relat- regular grid squared, For an i ced to the spacing, It iy not possible to determine the absolute level of error from this technique, only how it varies with spacing. Therelore. to determine the absolute leve! of error. itis necessary {0 compare 2 computer simulation with an analytical solution, In many cases, numerical techniques are used to solve functions (such as on a computer), and thus, there is normally some numerical error associated with a solution. Nevertheless, the latter error can be quite smail, if implemented correctly. These analytical solu tions aye only available for certain geometries, and, as a result, the accuracy of most real simulations cannot be determined absolutely, However, multiple runs made with different grid spacing can be compared to each ‘other, which indicates convergence to a consistent solu tion is rapic and changes in solutions are of a smell mag- nitude. This is called a grid sensitivity test. Grid sensitivity tests (practical knowledge) Therefore, itis practical to est the accuracy of a grid using muligte simulation runs. These sensitivities need not be performed on the entire grid, It is generally sufi- cient to make a grid fora small group of wells, which fea- ture the important mechanisms in the resenwit. This allows detailed (small dimension) grid blocks to be explored wit realistic simulation execution times. Errors and temporal discretization, i. timesteps (limitation) ‘The errors associated with timesteps are directly relat ced to the length of the timestep. This means timestep fengths usually vary in a simulation. Specific contrals governing timestep sizes will be discussed later. Turbulent flow (limitation/alternate formulation) {As shown in Figure 2-3 and mentioned earlier, there are deviations from Darcy's Law at high flow rates, Four significant situations where this deviation from Darcy’. Law is commonly encountered are: high-rate gas wells propped hydraulic fractures natural fractures in fractured reservoirs steam injection in heavy oilPractical Reservarr Simulation Turbulent Mow & described by the Forcheimer equa- tion, which is shown as Equation 26, 26) ‘This has an additional term, which is rate dependent. Beta, the Forcheimer coefficient. can be correlated with permeability as shown in Figure 2-7. Fig, 2-7 Forchelmer Beta Factor ‘This ratedependent permeability can be pro- grammed in a reservvir simulator, although it has been implemented in relatively few In these instances, con- ventional reservoir simulators may not be capable of ‘matching field results. Pseudo pressures (limitation/alternate formulation) ‘The base ditferentil equations for pressure transient analysis and reservoir simulation are the same, although in ferent coordinate forms: en (28) n< Ieis natural to ask is why reservoir simulators are not formulated based on pseudo pressures, The answer is they can. ts even possible to assign a pseuclo pressure to oil. The use of pseudo pressure linearizes the 1/42 ‘when dealing with gas. In a reservoir simulation. these factors are al calculated for time as « function of pres sure. The use of pseudo pressure is a Limited improse: tment for a reservoir simulator. This is because the val tues of and 2 are alteady pressure dependent trom PVT tables, Note also a performance prediction ftom a pres- sure transient package will be different from a simulator Prediction, even if pseudo pressure is used. The simu- lator is more accurate. This is due to the rightside guc/z term. The use of pseudo time (Agarwal) is intended to linearize the term on the right side of the differential equation.* Settari and others have built a reservoir simulator specifically for pressure transient analysis, which utitizes Pseudo pressure for both ait and gas. ‘Matrix structure (formulation/practical knowledge) By systematic ordering af the equations trom the Cartesian equation described previously for each grid block. itis possible to create a matrix having a particular shape or character. This is shown in Figure 2-8 and is yp ical of reservoir simulation problems. Sometimes this is called D2 ordering fen ZEEE lay ee Mahe fou beh rid "EL, ) computationat molecule incidence matrix Fig 2-8 Example of Matrix Structure (02 Ordering) ‘There is also another method, which was first applied to reservoir simulation by Coats It is called red black. ordering or D4 ordering, This results in some increase in efficiency in some cases amd is shown in Figure 2-8.Fig. 2-9 Matix Structure (D4 Ordering) Since D4 ordering does not always decrease run times (or increase solver efficiency), a “aumber of simulators, allow you to specify the ordering used. This is specified with a line and keyword in a numerical section such as ORDERING = D4 or ORDERING = D2. Most simulators, seem to default to 02 ordering at present, The terms are concentrated along a diagonal in the matrix, For implementation in a sieiutator, itis possible to take advantage of the bandwidth and use a minimum of storage, because calculations are required in active areas of the matrix only. Matrix solution is faster for nar rower bandwidths. These are not the only ordering schemes available, A. reverse Cuthill McKee ordering is found on some simula tors. Other orderings may also be develope. Since itis not always possible to tell which ordering ‘scheme will work best, this has to be determined by trial and ertor. It becomes an issue when you are dealing with large simulations, where execution time is a signif- icant issue, Solution of the matrices will be discussed later, since further background is required related to multiphase flow and displacement Stable matrix terms (formulation) ‘The terms in the matrix on the left side, which at this point have been formulated for single-phase flom are quite stable, These are calculated once, which is done before the simulator proceeds with calculations through time. Both compressibility of the fluid and povasity of the grid block are normally pressure dependent. athematical Considgratio Implicit versus explicit solutions (ormulation/practical knowledge) Using a simplified singlephase example can be solved in two ways. The fist assumes the pressure gradi ents in space dont change much between timestens Therefore, the solution at time n + 1 can be estimated from existing values of pressure, This iS known as an explicit solution. After a few experiments, the prediction ofthe solution a¢ time a + 1 is improved if one takes the solution from time n + 1 and averages it with the original solution at time a, yielding an average elfective pressure of (P+ P.)/2 for the iteration. This updated average pressure tien used to reestimate the pressure at time a» 1. The variation in each successive estimate of the solution at time n + | is observable using the average pressure across the timestep. The difference between successive itera tions can be set at a tolerance defining convergence, and a form of control is introduced, This is known as an implicit solution The difference between these two types of calcula tions can be surnmarized as follows. Explicit solutions are based on the solution at the last timestep, and only one leap forward in time is made. Implicit solutions are based (on both the previous and current sotution and involve rmultipfe estimates of the solution at time n+ | Clearly the second method involves more calcula tions—ie,, more work—on behalf of & computer. The second method is more accurate and allows longer timesteps to be taken, So there is a tradeoff in accurac calculations required, and the length of the timestep ‘The two methods will approach exact analytical solutions rom different sides of the actual solution ‘What is not immediately apparent is that both explicit and implicit methods have limits on the maximum length of timesteps, with the explicit limit being much shoner than the implicit timit. Explicit solutions can become unstable much more easily in which case the accuracy of the solution can diverge strongly. This is depicted in car- toon format in Figure 2-10.Practical Reservoir Simy fowalytical) \ folly implicit section rei Fig 2-10 Divergence of Iniplicit and Explicit Formulations All modern reservoir simulators use an implicit for mulation for determining pressures Inner and outer loops (formulation) One other subtlety should be pointed out explicit formulation, only one matrix solution is required When an implicit formulation is used, the matrix is solved multiple times with different estimates of the average pressure forthe timestep. Changing the pressure estimate Js knowa as the outer loop, while the matrix solution is, known as the inner loop In the ‘Multiphase development (formulation) When multiple phases are introduced, the equations are written for each individual component separately which usually comprise oil, gas, and water The satura tions ofall three phases, expressed as a fraction of pore volume, all have to add up to one, which gives another equation for each grid block to solve the problem, The solution vector now includes pressures and saturations for each phase. Ths is not dificult to implement. The PVT description is not difficult. Simple table lookups are used for the oil, and the real gas law is imple- ‘mented with a table lookup to account for variations in real gas compressibility or z factor with pressure, Water compressibility is handled with an analytical equation The messy part of multiple phase simulation relates to the ttansfer between grid blocks or Darcy’ Law. The absolute permeability must be multiplied by the respec- tive phase relative permeability. which isa function of sat Uurations. This introduces a strong nonlinearity: The rela: tive permeabilities. as with the PVT determined by a table lookup function Jala, are usually Accounting for changes in relative permeability (formulation) This type of problem is approached in a number of ways. First. one can assume the relative permeability and, hence, saturation does not change much during a timestep. In this case, the relative permeabilities are determined at the start of the timestep and are not updat- fed, This is known as an IMPES formulation for implicit Pressure explicit saturation. The second way’ to do this is to use the saturations. from the last timestep to estimate the average saturation for the firs iteration, in essence an IMPES timestep. At the fend of the first timestep, the average saturation for each arid block is updated using the saturations at the end of the timestep to calculate an average saturation and aver age relative permeability. A control check is then made to see how much difference there is between the first est: mated solution (saturation) and the second estimated solution. When the difference between successive itera tions becomes smaller than a specified accuracy, the lat est solution is adopted as the solution for time m+ 1. This, is really an implicit pressure and implicit saturation for- mulation (IMPIMS). A consistent terminology such as IMPIMS has not caught on as an acronym; this formula tion has been called fully implicit. Later in this chapter. it will be sown this last term is actually quite misleading Finally, there are some intermediate methods, which solve fist for pressure implicitly and then update saturax tions in a multistep manner. The latter methods (general> ly termed semiimplicit) are now rarely used, although they were common in a number of in-house and com- mercial programs at one time. These equations are no longer in widespread use due to mathematical problems related to the conservation of mass. This is only an issue for older software. Newton-Raphson technique (formulation) ‘The nonlinearity associated with saturation changes is quite strong. The process of averaging the saturation for the timestep can lead to slow convergence on the outer iterations. In addition, based on the author’ experience, the convergence of the pressure solution is not always fast if there are steep pressure gradients.‘There is a way to speed this up—use an acceleration technique. The one used is the classic NewtonRaphson This requires partial derivatives of che trans: matrix be calculated, A derivative matrix is ich is a rather funky name often relerred to in saftware documentation. The basic Newton-Raphson technique involves recasting the equa: tion into a root form as shown in Equation 2.9, Successive estimates are calculated as shown in Equation 2.10. These are shown for a regular algebraic equation as an example, rechnique isi called a Jacobian, wh e9 gta - LO) . (2.10) FO * For the square root of 2, and an initial guess of 1.2 (2.108) (2.100) 43533, (2.106) 221.4333 0.4995 =2) aia 2.104) 31a This process replaces calculating a simple average pres- sure and saturation across the timestep and results in much faster convergence. When this technique is used (which is universally the case), the outer iterations are called ‘Newtonian iterations. The two terms are synonymous. ‘Material balance (practical knowledge) Since the methods described previously are numeri- cal, it useful to have an indication the solution is con- verging to a correct solution. The material balance is a tool developed to monitor this. The idea is nee difficult the total mass of ol, gas, and water within the reservoir is calculated by the simulator, as well as the total mass of the produced fluids, less the mass of injected fluids. The amount of mass missing or added represents an indica- tion of the quality or accuracy ofthe sofution. This cal ulation is made on a global basis, Mathemati This to01 is no grid may have errors that cancel out, In practice, itis a Useful tool To add some contusion, there ate two common ways of calculating the material balance. The first is for the cumulative timesteps to date, and the other method involves calculating the material balance for each indi vidual timestep. The latter is a much smaller represezta: tion of the total solution and nermatly would have a smaller tolerance. Having said this, the timestep version often gives insight t0 where and at what time problems are occurring in the simulation. It is possible to rectify these by using shorter timesteps or modifying other input Some simulators, particularly thermal simulators, allow you to use material balance for a single timestep as a control variable. If the material balance error for a timestep is too large, then the timestep is cut. This vari- able is usually implemented én the numerical controls section of a data set Since most simulations involve comparing relatively ‘small differences in recovery between competing deple- tion plans, material balance errors shoutd be kept to low values, This is 2 relative guideline. Investigating a differ- ence in recovery between depletion plans of 2% is com mon. On this basis, material balance should be kept to less than 0.1%, Such accuracy is hard ¢o achieve on thermal simula: tions. Economics depend heavily on rate, Changes in economics will occur with 5% variations in rates. Actually, this is good accuracy for rate predictions. Therefore, for overall project economics, higher levels of error ave acceptable perfect, since different parts of the Frontal displacement (limitation) Frontal displacement may seem like an odd topic for ‘a book on reservwir simulation; however, the reader should be aware of this area of simulator weakness. In fact, there are some fundamental areas in reservoir simu- lation to be resolved. This is one of the most important, Buckley-Leverett theory (formulation) ‘The Buckley-Leverett theory is explained well in a number of places. The SPE monograph on watesflooding edited by Craig, Dake's Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, and Lake's Enhanced Oil Recovery are just a few58? These excellent explanations will not be repeated in this text. The main point is that this theory predicis an abrupt flood front, such as the one shown in Figure 2-11 asiderationsGrid Glee Aig x x % Fig 2-11 Buckley Leveren immiscible Displacement Profile (WN Ko/es curves. Kew ts wintwal, evon Hout front Was ovaiceet ints gid block, “lus Yo physically « coved, hone vpstraa ut waalgting Idea of Upsiream Weighting Weighting of transmissibilities (formulation) Displacement proceses have caused problems in generating the basie formulation for eservoirsimult tors, The ted in Figure 2-12, shows a simplified one dimensional (1-D) grid. As injected water displaces olin a grid block dur ing a timestep, what relative perme: ability should be used? Should it be the relalive permeability from the upstream side ofthe block, witch has fa high water saturation? Alternatively would the downstream side of the block be preferable, where the rela: tive permeability to water is low due to the low water saturation? An aver age is required, reflecting the relative permeabilities of the flood front upstream and downstream, as well as the proportion of the grid block that has been traversed. Effects of different formula- tions—upstream weighting (limitation /formulation) Without going into detail, many mathematical approaches do not pro duce stable results, as shown in Figures 2-13(a) and 2-13(b).* The only method producing stable results isthe use of upstream weight ing. In the injected water problem dis- cussed previously, the water relative permeability for the grid block is determined by the water saturation in the block upstream of the grid block being calculated (note this is defined by the potential gradient, At frst, this may cause consterna: tion. A block at irreducible water satu- ration has a water relative permeabili- ty of zero. If downstream weighting is used, water should not be able to move. However, this analysis over. looks the direction of saturation changes. We determine the irre- ducible water saturation by flooding awe Artin 's Kew Is wintwal, exon trough, x x— % Fig. 2-11 Buckley Leverett Immiscible Displacement Profle ~~ (MS 40 kw, /| ny curves. Frout (rats odbusrtcaet its gid block, “lus ts vo physically « convedh, honca- upstraa ut wneiglating Fig 2-12 Idea of Upstream Weighting Weighting of transmissibilities (formulation) Displacement caused problems in § processes have ating the basic formulation for reservoir simul tors, The general idea. depicted in Figure 2-12, shows a simplifie dimensional (1-D) grid. As injected water displaces oil in a grid block dur ing a timestep, what relative perme: ability should be used? Should it be 1 relative permeability from the upstream side of the block, which lias a high water saturation? Alternatively would the downstream side of the block be preferable, where the rela: tive permeability to water is low due to the low water saturation? An aver age is required, reflecting the relative permeabilities of the flood front upstream and downstream, as well as the proportion of the grid block that has been traversed. Effects of different formula- tions—upstream weighting (limitation/formulation) Without going into detail, many mathematical approaches do not pro duce stable results, as shown in Figures 2-13(a) and 2-13(b).* The only method producing stabi results is the use of upstream weight ing. In the injected water problem dis- cussed previously, the water relative permeability for the grid block is determined by the water saturation in the block upstream of the grid block being calculated (note this is defined by the potential gradient) At first, this may cause consterna- tion, A block at irreducible water satu ration has a water relative permeabili ty of zero. If downstream weighting is, used, water should not be able to move. However, this analysis over looks the direction of saturation changes. We determine the irre- ducible water saturation by flooding aWater Saturation Water Saturation 08 06 Mathematical Considerations Timestep = 50 days Timestep 02 oe 08 08 lative Length Fig. 2-13(a) Examples of Instabilities Caused by Diflerent Weighting Schemes 40 grid blocks Buckley Leverett Solution (no P.) Sf 08 06 02 Buckley Leverett a Solution (no P2) 40 grid blocks 00 00 08 08 Relative Length 02 Fig. 2-13(2) Examples of Instabilities Caused by Ditlerent Weighting SchemesPractical Reservoir Simulation 100% watersaturated core with oil until we cannot get the water saturation to go any lower in a reasonable test peri= Cod, In this ease, the water saturation iy decreasing, and since itis the wetting phase, itis a drainage process. Commonly, water is injected into samples, which is ur so-called waterflood test. Since the wetting phase is increasing, the process becomes an imbibition displace. ment process. This is not a tricky operation and, in fact, supports the assertion that some adjustment must be made to calculate relative permeabilities when displace. nent is occurring. Capillary pressure (limitation) The Buckley-Leverett theory is deficient in one major respect—accounting for capiliary pressure, The relation used is shown in Equatign 2.11. An equation has been constructed with this effect for radial flow; however, 90 cone has solved this equation directly for use in commer cial simulators. Chin has solved it for radial flow for drilling invasion profes. ‘The problem term is the calculation of the partial derivative of P. with respect to x. We do not know this directly, but it would be possible to calculate it with Equation 2.12; SS wd @ip kyA( AP, | Apgsina ax 1.013366 Ha Ko (+E ] (etd units) 2p. dR OS. ey a5. oe Qualitatively, we know what this looks like, as shown in Figure 2-14(a) and (b): Fig, 2-14 Derivative of P. with Saturation and 8, with Distance From this, it is obvious both (dP/dS,) and (@5,/9x) are negative. I the terms are multiplied together, they are positive. Therefore, P /ax is positive and, referring to the previous equation. the fractional flow of water should always increase. Buckley-Leverett theory suggests a dis- continuity atthe shock front; however, the capillary pres- sure will round the sharp points and cause the singuiari- ty im the slope to disappear, resulting in a continucus curve (je., one with a finite slope). The effects of tis are shown in Figures 2-15(a) and Figure 2-15(b).?A 5 t x distance B Oi pressure / P| water pressure Wares ow With capillary pressure — ieroutcapiary pressure Pig 2-15a P_ and Water Movements with Immiscible Displacement Fig 2-15b P, and Water Movements with immiscible Displacement It is appropriate to point out that the P. curve is over simplified when real displacement is considered. We use drainage curves for doing our initial saturations. This will be discussed later. In most waterflood calcula- tions, our wetting phase is increasing, which requires an imbibition curve. Thus, a case can be made for having different capillary pressure data for initialization and for displacement calculations, Mathematical Considerations Fundamental problem (limitation) Such fundamental problems in displacement theory have been noticed. A considerable amount of detail on this exact topic is found in Dullien’s Multiphase Flow ia Porous Media and in Springer Verlag’s Springer Veriag Lecture Notes in Engineering, by M. B. Allen Ill, G. A Behie, and J. A. Trangenstein.!2" Wilson C. Chin deals with these issues in a number of his books, which include Formation Invasion, Wave Propagation in Petroleum Engineering, and Modern Reservoir Flow and Well Test Analysis. 2 Alt ofthe later are from Gulf Publishing One-dimensional IMPES displacement stability (limitation/practical knowledge) Some simple 1-D tests with a simulator show the nature of errors caused by multiphase flow. First, there is the nature ofthe numerical error, which isa smearing of the shock front. This numerical dispersion effect resem. bles the smearing caused by capillary pressure, but its not the same, The two may be additive, Second, the use of timesteps that are too large may introduce instabilities. A simple LD situation has been modeled using two dif ferent commercial simulators. In Figure 2-16, the high values of water saturation represent a numerical stability problem, which occurs with IMPESAype simulators. One-Dimensional Test o7 Instabilities ‘Water Saturation, fraction Paseo Wid WWM RMI II IO Grid-Block Number Fig 2-16 Water Saturations When IMPES Stabily Limit ls Exceededair Simulation This problem is more difficult to spot in an areal (2D oF }-D) simulation. ft can be identified by looking for val ofS, higher than (1 ~5,). They wil! most likely occur ia well blocks. This will identity the worst errors. Look for a stability calculation in the simulation report, These are actually rare but should instill confidence if included. The flood front should not advance more than one grid block per timestep Contrary to popular beliet, these instability errors will fot show up as a material balance error They will over estimate waterflood recovery ifthe history match is hased on primary production, It will make history matching dit- ficult ifa waterflood history is being matched, One-dimensional dispersion (imitation/practical knowledge) Dispersion, another aumerical error is shown in Figure 2-17. A smearing of the waterflood front occurs in Simulation. A small tongue of water (saturation) will steak ahead of the flood front predicted by Buckley Leveret theory which is shown on the subject diagram. Water Saturation, fraction Tee SWRM MUHA NB BMI a Grid Block Kumber ig 2-17 Water Profle hom Simulator Including P. and Dispersion In order to avoid matching water production resulting from numerical dispersion, it has been common to make this problem go away by using a well pseudo relative Permeability curve, Some simulation engineers will ry to match breakthroughs at the 20% water cut to ensure the proper breakthrough is matched, These are matters of personal style, Maximum accuracy (practical knowledge) The numerical dispersion iy higher on the newer fly implicit simulators than on the old IMPESAype simulators. The IMPES simulator more closely matches the predic tions of Buckley-Leverett theo: Therefore. a newer implicit) simulator does not necessarily give better results in all respects, Adaptive implicit method (practical knowledge) A frequent compromise isto use a combin two techniques. This is known as an adaptive implicit yethod (AIM). It can result in increases in speed. This method requires some overhead to change the grid blocks Jrom one formulation tothe other There are also various ‘ways of controling this. Some controls utilize a saturation jump limit and some utilize a stability calculation Ik is possible the overhead can exceed the gains in speed, If correctly implemented, the use of a saturation, change contro! will be faster. Stability calculations are more rigorous but slower. Overall simulator flow diagram (formulation) The overall flow of a simulator program is shown in Figure 2-18, The major steps areas follows 1. Stage 1 during Input Data is data scanning The simulator wil evaluate all of the mput infor mation. Normally this involves some consisten- cy checks to evaluate if the input data is cor rect. At this ime the information is stored in lookup tabes. 2, Stage 2 during nput Dara isto develop all ofthe matrices. Most ofthe terms inthe mateces are fixed and only need to be calculated once. 3. The initialization is made. Recall that an intial solution is required to propagate the solution through time In a modern simulatorthe gid- block saturations may be calculated by @ number of different userdefined methods See chapter 9 for more information on initialization 4. Stage 3 in Read Run Dara is the timestep loop. During this stage. any production information (or well rates) and well controls are read by the simulator and added to the matrix This és followed by Timestep Control. The timesteps ‘must be smaller than the next time the wel rates andlor well controls are specified.1. Once the time dependent information has ulators have iterative solvers that usually been read, the Ouler or Newtonian iteration provide a faster solution by triai and error control occurs. This checks the differences methods Using iterative solvers, the num etween successive solutions. A minimum of ber of inner iterations will usually te larger two solutions is required: the initial guess (the than the number of outer loop iterations. solution from the last timestep) and at least Solvers will be discussed later. one Newton Raphson updated solution b. Atthe end of each set of inner iterations, it i, Within the Outer ferations are successive may be necessary to shorten the timestep. Inner Yerations. tt is possible to solve the This control occurs at the Outer iteration level matrices in one loop using a direct 5, Atthe end of well rate and/or well control infor (Gaussian) matrix solution. tn this case, the ‘mation, the simulator is instructed to stop,and the umber of outer and inner loops for a simulation is complete, timestep will be the same, However, all sim: ‘The overall outline of a simulator is relatively simple. The first part ofthe sim- * sop Hnveugs dtr st Uulator is not repeated and is usually eur | + cate Hat elered to generally a the innaliza FAA Tet eee oe ‘ion section of the simulator. The second [gril eat cP kak) part, with the timestep conteol compris Ppa dades ing the outer and inner loops, is usually 9 ey Bd ae relerred to generically as the run section Y wna yin ois of the simulation. The data decks and + act up tunsuisrivilittas execution of the code are also usually eA on Az sb spilt ito these two logical divisions. INITIATION! caldera init tah saturation » De Save, case ate. Timestep control ee (practical knowledge) READ + wail coutyol Beate dda Initially, the first timestep is specified RON DATA + dla up “b" sactor in the input data. Normally, there is also a default. For field simulations, a day is TIME TER] ¢ Wikal ttwnedtap be usually a good starting point. Ifa fine conc | | Beene grid is being used and nearwellbore phenomena are being investigated, 0.01 | Piast OUTER Tntan SLUR days seems to be a good initial timestep (eunamen, solve for © size, This comes with a bit of experi | covtowarte) eee ence, but, usually, the issue is limited to ceerwatly taeda ine grids SS ‘The end of a timestep occurs when a particular threshold of accuracy has One ee been reached. There are a number of inner onattons ways of doing this. It can be expressed eas an arbitrary pressure and/or satura tion change. Alternatively, it can be ee expressed as a percentage or fraction, In addition, average errors and maximum. END enors for individual lines in the matrix canbe specified. In general, the simula tor will have reasonable defaults built in Fig 2-18 Overall Flowchart for Reservoir Simulation Program or described in the documentation, >a1 Timestep optimization (practical knowledge) The simuison has an absolute maximum level of error set by t+ timestep control, Optimally better accu racy can be Gz:ained! and a second set of tolerances can besetto, inefect. indicate my or this accuracy. Te fewer the timesteps ere are in a simulation the faster the work lows for more engineering oF mare ra the objective is (0 is done, whic work, With tmestep optimization, aggressively maximize timestep size and still meet the optimal level This is a diicult control to design. Most simulators will try to dousle the size of each timestep compared to the previous one, However, this can be either too aygres sive of not aggressive enough, This has become a user adjustable inpct, and it is specifed as a multiplier of the previous timestep length, If the timestep is too long, then the timestep length will have to be cut. There is corresponding timestep divider, which is the opposite of the acceleration factor. Overall, the defaults seem to work quite well, but this is not always the case. Timestep lengths can sawtooth, whieh is characterized by several rapid increases, fol lowed by a drastic cut in timestep length. This should be avoided because it slows dowa execution, Finally, there are practical limits for timestep lengths, Both absolute minimums and absolute maximums can be specified as user input Analytical inflow equations (formulation) Wells become active during the run portion of the sir ‘ulation, This s. therefore, an appropriate point to discuss how wells work in the simulator. For the majority of afeal simulations, an analytical inflow equation is used within the model. Implementing an analytical equation presents a few problems, Atypical arid block is shown in Figure 2-19. Pressure distribution Fig. 2-19 Pressure Disinbution in Grid Block from Well Production The first problem is 10 yelate the well pressure to the average block pressure, There are a number of choices of analytical equations that can be used. which ute dit ferent boundary conditions, These odlow boundaries as well as constant pressure bountiaries, In truth, a reservoir simulator grid block falls between these two extremes. Flow does enter from the nest block as a include function of the difference in pressure between the wo bl Equation 2.13 is the stea for a nelow boun icks, In weality, neither equation is directly applicable dy siale (not transient Pe huh g=eo.onniy7) 2k He, The intent of developing an inflow equation for the well is allow it to be solved along with the ather reser voir equations. This is done by adding it to the matrix developed for the grid as a whole, Nave that well equa tions are usually added to the matrix in a seperate section at the bottom, Peaceman’s equation (formulation/limitation) The solution to this problem was developed by Peaceman.' In essence, fie solved a steady state inflow of a single-phase fluid using numerical methods, The grid he used is shown in Figure 2-20 and is intended to repre- sent a repetitive fivespot injection pattern. 10x 10 Computing Grid for Repeated Five-Spor Pattern " Cer 0 saci 9 Cot . I : HEE iS or 3 I 1 : =H} rs'g on Fig, 2-20 Steady State Grid Used bv ReacemanThe ultimate outcome of this stzatation was an equiv The equation for this is given as alent grit-biock radius, Equation 2.14, = 0.2 JO This effective grid-block radius, x, is input into a dis cretized equation for solving well rates, which is shown in Equatic tay It is important to recognize this was developed based on steady state flow conditions in ‘which rates and pres- sure profiles are stabilized. The pressure profile is depict ed in Figure 2-21 Thissteady state flow assumption would not be correct for a single well located in the midcle of an infinite aquifer Most wells are murned on and off on a number of fceasions during a producing month, and, therefore, they are rately in steady state conditions, This tevel of detail cannot be captured unless short timeseps are used, In practice, this may or may not bea significa sue Another way to lok at this fs the production perlorm- ance of low-permeabiliy reservoirs. There are numerous examples of this in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin, Most low-permeabilty Deep Basin gas reservoirs show a one or twoyear fish production. This tarsient effect cannot be described with a steady sate equation, 100 st 1.050 Pressure along diagonal 50 'Steady state pressure distribution along diagonal between the injector and produeer: The 4 severe for low permeability reservoirs because the tan sient effects take longer to die out. viation from the idealized conditions is more Implicit wells versus explicit wells (formulation/practical knowledge) Just like the development of the grid, wells can be solved either in an explicit fashion or in an iempicit fash ion, In the earlier days. wells were not always solved implicitly Recent observations indicate all simulators now include implicit wells. In this case, the relative per meabilty for the well and the pressure in the well are updated during outer iterations ‘The relative permeability is controlled by the satura tion in the well grid block. As with displacement, ths sit uation requires upstream weighting: otherwise, when ‘water injection is attempted, relative permeabilities of zero will stop injection. A specialized form of upstream weighting is utilized on injection well relative permeabil- ities to allow water injection to occur—just as it does in reality Some simulators do not have this feature buil in tr is necessary to mislead the simulator by arbitrarily including water saturations in injection well grid blocks that are above the irreducible water saturation during ini- tialization. This requirement is rare, but such simulators are used. Pressure buildups (limitation) Itis important to realize, since the well inflow equa- tion was based on steady state flow, the simulator can: not predict a pressure buildup uniess special fine grid- ding is used. 75 130 Distance, ft 125 Fig. 2-21 Pressure Profile between Steady Stare Water injector and Producer oatPractical Reservoir Simulation Anisotropy If the reservoir permeability is anisotropic. then the equation can be modified as follows Ate E (“iy ‘Skin factor limitations (limitation/practical knowledge) The discretized well equation has a skin factor In severe cases. the skin becomes So large the denominator in the inflow equation can be fess than zero. The magei tude of In(z/r,) for most well equations is normally about seven or eight. With smaller grid blocks, the effec: tive grid block radius can drop to values of skins typical of fracturing treatments (4 oF 5). Since s ts subtracted from the In(z/r,) term, the denominator in the dis cretized well equation can be less than zero. However, the log of a negative number is not defined. Further mathematical trickery is needed as defined by Odeh. , is the radius of the improved zone. The & x h is adjusted upwards as follows in Partial completion (limitation/practical knowledge) ‘The analytical inflow equation also assumes the entire srid-block height is perforated. Frequently, the extent of perforations is limited. In such cases, itis normal to adjust the skin factor via the method of Brons and Marting * Multiphase flow in wells (limitation) ‘The development of the Peaceman equation was only for a singlephase fluid (water), Although the wellbore equation is implemented in simulators by weighting the individual phase components (water, gas, and oil), the ‘well equation was not developed and tested under these conditions. This situation happens frequently in reservoir simulation, as shown in Figure 2-22 oiwelt Water injector ° 2 Partial Completion Coning suming Fig 2-22 Diagram tustraing Slumping ancl Coning Analytical coning calculations indicate we should not expect a singlephase approach to provide accurate results. Therefore, when multiple saturations exist, i is necessary to model the situation with a detailed grid. This leads naturally to the next topic. Handling multiphase wells in reservoir simulation (practical knowledge) Wells with multiphase flow and nearwellbore pres- sure transients present special difficulties in reservoir simulation, A number of different techniques have been developed to handle them. The appropriate tech- nique depends on the application. The various tech niques are outlined: use of radial grids focal grid refinement analytical coning equations composite (multigrid) reservoir simulators well pseudo relative permeabilities ‘These techniques will be explained in the following section. In some cases, the entire objective of simulation will be to determine well performance. Under these circumstances, the model will be restricted to a single well, Single-well studies are discussed in the latter part of this chapter, Detailed well studies (practical knowledge) For detailed well studies, a modification on the basic simulator is used, Radial coordinates are used in favor of Cartesian coordinates. A typical radial grid is shown in Figure 2-23, which represents a single slice of a pie. In most cases, the pie will extend around all 360 degrees if properties do not vary radially.Fig 2-23 Exomple of Radiat Grid Such a model is capable of handling multiple phases correctly. Note the size of the grid blocks is now much smaller than the size of the earlier flow net. The inflow into the wellbore is still calculated using the Peaceman steady state equation. Theoretically, this is a farce since there is nothing really steady state about the flow. The error is not serious though, because the volumes imme diately surrounding the wellbore are so small. The pres- sure transient when the well is put on production is prop- agated through interblock flow. A simulation using this technique will start with very small timesteps. Alternatives to reduce the number of grid blocks (practical knowledge) From the previous discussion, it could be concluded that handling wells can require a large number of grid blocks. This can exceed the capacity of large, modern computers. For an areal model with multiple wells and fluid con- tacts, more sophisticated techniques have been devel- oped to keep grids to reasonable dimensions: 1. A separate detailed coning study is performed to determine well behavior Provided the saturations cchange in one direction consistently the radial inflow equation may be fooled with a well pseu: do relative permeability curve Pseudo relative permeability and upscaling are discussed in chap- ter 8 The proportion of oil gas, and water pro- duced because of coning can be accurately repli- cated this way. This is shown in Figure 2-24 1. Setup radial gis tomaten tne viel grid Blocfom overated {nd mode Ran a mation {Sragorosiycaclteconng 2Develop pseudo elatve permeability curve Note hat coring screases later production. 4.Use altered relative permeability intesd mode for ful fla stad. 24 Radial Grd StcyResenoreeve (05-8) a. paw bio] a Exonple of Water Cone and Analvtcal Equation “egnd “Fgeid ‘© 2 a ou} ae rage} ay oe ate) * “) Pig.2-25 Combination Stator Rach Sabi Inclusion Advancing through Time + —1—_+ ‘ig, 2-27 To Local Grit Refinement Methods Ne 2. An analytical equation may sometimes be used 10 calculate the proportion of water ur gas test from coning This involves some custorn modi tions to the simulator.A number of coreelations teh tuning to can be used, Ordinarily historical the equation will be required t0 get ood results. Such a situation is depicted in Figure 2-28, 3. A special areal mode! can be developed that nas.a special coning model routine built in ie.a simulator within a simulator This requires a custom model. The general idea is ouitined in Figure 2-26, 4 Recently models have been built that allow sugrids of local grid refinement Ths effectively handles the coning phenomena, Typical subgrids used are shown in Figuee 2-27, The number of local grid refinements allowed in a model may be limited. Therefore, in lange studies, the older techniques described in items 1 through 3 may still be used. Well controls (formulation/practical knowledge) ‘The next logical topic is well controls, These are most Iy used in predictive reservoir simulation, i, ater histo ry matching. These controls allow maximum and min ‘mum well ates, maximum water cus, and GOR, as well as allowing simitar controls on groups of wells These conttals are added as equations after the well equations, which connect the wells to the grid. Well con trols are not a tivial problem mathematically They can produce what mathematicians eler to as stiff matrices. A slight shift in productivity will trigger additional wells being put on production or other operating changes. tis, easy for the simulator to cycle across one of these set poines and become unstable. Frequently the solution (0 this ig the use of dampening, which is applied in the matrix solver. Matrix solvers—numericai (formulation) Two basic types of solvers are used in reservoir simu lation. The fists direct solution, whichis done normally by Gaussian elimination. The second type is an iterative solution, There are three major issues fa solver selection ‘The frst is storage, which is limited normally by comput er memory: The second is the amount of work involved The third is the amount of overhead required to imple- ment a system.There have been a + .mber of significant changes dur- ing the last few years iz. matrix solvers. For this reason, a Jumber of the standar: works on reservoir simulation, Petroleum Reservoir Simulation, while correct on formussion, arena longer uptodate on modern solvers, For the most part, solvers have become much stronger, more roayst, and generally easier to use. A brief discussion of the =wo types of solvers is outlined in the following such as Aziz and Set Direct elimination (formulation) ‘This method is simi.ar to the method first taught for solving equations in university and high school math, ‘This process should loos farniliar Bx + dy = = = 2x + By = 0 dye By 2 2 = pps tps) 23 Ojy ers) 43-1 This can be translated into an augmented matrix and solved by row operations: 34 1fi 23 0/0 43- Row 1-Row 2 biayi 23 0}0 43-1 a! Considerations (Row 1 Row 2) and (Row 3 + Row 2) 00 -7 01-2 oo. By back substitution, itis possible to calculate ee y A systematic operation has been used. The first row was normalized to a value of one on the diagonal. Then, the lower triangle of the matrix was systematically elimi- nated. Back substitution allowed direct calculation of z, y, and x by working from the bottom to the top. For small problems where the amount of work and storage is not a major concern, this is the preferred method of solving equations. Most simulation documen- tation sets am upper limit of the order of 300 to 1,000 grid blocks for Gaussian elimination. Gaussian elimination sometimes is as efficient on larger problems as the sug- gested maximum, For problems of as many as 3,000 grid blocks, not much harm is done by running a problem for two or three timesteps with the various solvers available. Normally itis easy to determine which one works best by using trial and error ‘The previous scheme is usually broken down and described by mathematicians as LU Decomposition. The implementation to minimize storage is normally via a series of vectors, such as those shown in Figure 2-28,Practical Rise a8 voir ISIINININ Second Degree ILU (Natural Ordering) NANNY Fig 2-25 LU Ractohization for Preconditioning The authcr used one of the solvers in the back of Aziz and Setiaris took for a university course and messed up the vector numbering convention. Reasoning there must bea bug, the solver was rewritten with different indices. Zero terms tave to be handled differently and each matrix row cperation has many index manipulations. ‘This experience demonstrated to the author how matrix solutions invoive a number of integer operations for each floating point calculation Iterative solvers (formulation) Larger sirsulations will result in matrices more eff ciently solved by iterative methods. These methods require less storage. The number of iterations must be sul ficiently low o produce a faster solution. Traditionally, this has involved a rumber of succes sive overtelaxation (SOR) techniques. An acceleration factor, normally designated with the smalt Greek letter omega («), is used in this method. Tuning was normally required on the acceleration factor by trial and error This system has been virtually replaced by accelerated preconditioned Orthomin solvers." Thus, ¢ discussion of SOR techniques is considered to be of historical rather than practical interest. In iterative solutions, the matrix is not solved direct: Jy. In essence. a guess is made as to what the solution will be (perhaps the saturations and pressures from the previous timestep), and then a method is used that will correct subsequent guesses. An arbitrary level of accu racy is normally specified and iterations are stopped when this is achieved. In more mathernatical terms, the general solution ofa matrix is given as (2.19) In the case of an iterative solver i split as follows: =C-R 2.20) where: C= the approximate coefficient matrix ine residual matrix, representing the error in C ‘The iterative method is then defin 1 b= dx" a2) ‘The size of ris used to determine if convergence has been achieved. Recall that both A and 6 are known, therefore the size of the error can be calculated at each iteration. The previous equation takes the current guess and updates it to the next one. Note the size of the error is used for correction. ‘A variety of different methods can be used by chang- ing the definition of C: fC-=A and R=0,then the method becomes Gaussian elimination, IFC =/.the solution becomes the Richardson method. IFC = D,solution i via lacobi method. where D is the diagonal part of . 16C= Vox D- Git gives an SOR solution where (4 = D- G, -G,) {C= LU:then the method becomes incomplete factorization, ‘The rate of convergence will depend on the method used and how wall it applies to the particular problem. When the residual reaches zero, one has an exact solu-tion, This also means the solver can be controlled by set ting @ tolerance on the residual vector. This will be a matrix solution control Acceleration (formulation) The techniques listed previously are not the full story on a modern matrix solver. This methodology can be upgraded by using an acceleration technique. The entire matrix solution process then becomes a twostage process, as outlined in Figure 2-29, Preconditioner Incomplete Factorization Does not calculate accurate solution Fast (or minimal work) ORTHOMIN Solve Exact solution calculated Iterative process ‘Accelerated Fig. 2-29 tterave Satver Flow Chart Acceleration is the second part of an iterative solver “The method tres to find which direction causes the resid- ual to change the most. Recall that in 3D space (in fact, ‘dimensional space), a plane can be represented by a single vector orthogonal to the surface. The term Orthomin is taken from orthogonal and minimization. The method also determines a magnitude to the orthogo- nal vector, which is designed to rapidly determine a clos- er solution. Note the iterative solution is applied to the original A matrix—this partis not an approximation. With regard to the flow diagram described previously, it may be concluded that the closer your initial estimate isto the correct solution, the faster you will get your solu- tion. The hitch here is more accurate estimates require more sophisticated methods. A variety of solutions can be used as initial guesses. These were outlined earlier as traditional techniques, which include successive overte laxation, partiat Gaussian eliminations, or incomplete factorization methods. Thisis a tradeoff, and getting the right degree and type of preconditioning will depend on individual problems. tathematic In the end, the Onhomin pointers direct successive erations to the right answer. The various correction vec: tors are also stored, and, therefore, the system has a memory However. if early estimates are off, the previous corrections may not contribute much toward pointing to the correct solution User control of solvers (practical knowledge) The number of Orrhomin solutions to be remembered can be specified. Depending on the problem, the solu tion speed could be increased oF impaired, This is, in fact, a contro! in reservoir simulator solvers and is known as the number of Orthomin vectors (usually called NORTH). The most common number of maximum solu tions remembered is between 10 and 25. Some simulators allow one to specify the precondi tioning technique. Some keywords ate quite specific about the mathematical technique to be used. Others hide the details and simply specify a level of difficulty Under these circumstances, one may be able to test the combination providing optimal solution time. Many simm- ulators do not allow this flexibility ‘When working on difficult problems and having trou ble getting adequate (.e., accurate and stable) solutions, the author has obtained best results by tightening the residual tolerances on the solver (inner 100p). To date, these prablems have been insensitive to the number of Orthomin vectors (solutions) used. However, itis worth Lying various changes if the defaults do not work satis factorly. The storage of these vectors can be significant, and one program allowsthe user to store this information fon the hard disk instead of in memory Pivoting (formulation and practical knowledge) This is a standard technique in the solution of matri- ces, Itis used in linear programming and is used as. star- ing point for finding an optimal solution. There are really two objectives in modern simulation programming, The first objective is to speed up solution. The second objec- tive isto reduce numerical errors Pivoting is desirable whenever there ate large con- trasts in the matrices. Where would this occur in numeri cal simulation? There are a number of cases. Layering can cause severe changes in transmissibiliies. A directional permeability trend will have the same effect. The most common example the author has used concerns model- ing hydraulic fractures directly in models. ConsiderationsPractical Reservoir Simulation a8 A pivoting option in a simulator will reorder the equa: tions so the high values are centrally located about the diagonal, This requires overhead to test the mattix but can mean the difference in whether or not a solution is, obtained. Since simulators generate banded matrices, the reordering ofthe equations can cause an increase in bandwidth, which in turn makes solution longer However, this will be offet somewhat because the ease with which a solution is obtained depends on the size of the matrix elements along the diagonal. After the matrix 's solved, deordering is required between the mais part of the simulator and the matrix solver For those simulators using a level of difficulty pivoting may be implemented, although this willbe transparent 10 the user, Other simulators will have a specific option such as PIVOT’ = ON or OFF. The default is normally OFF. Some popular simulators don't have this option at all. This lime its their capability Explanation of dampening One way to control the cyeling problem associated with well controls is to use dampening, Simulators use acceleration in the form of the Newton-Raphson tech: niigue on the outer iterations and, in the form of Orthomin, on the inner iterations. Maximum group rate controls often result in step changes, such as a well becoming shut.in or put on production, The acceleration techniques used often overshoot the actual solution. This, is a bit like projecting a time of arrival on the highway ‘when the driver in front crashes into the car aivead. The estimate based on derivatives (velocity) drastically over- shoots the future projected position. ‘The mathematical solution to this is equivalent to determining where the crash will occur (or where the maximum rate is encountered). In essence, an arbitrary fudge factor is applied to the well control or well equa- tions to stop overshooting the target solution. Since fudge factor is somewhat frowned upon as a technical term, this has been renamed dampening factor. It must be less than one (one being no dampening), greater than zero, and normally must exceed some mini: mum, The correct factor is determined by trial and error. also know as guessing, another nontechnical term that is frowned upon. Summary Buckley-Leverett theory, which is the foundation of simulation calculations, has some significant simplifica tions, Reservoir simulators partially consider capillary pressure and therefore represent a somewhat improved calculation compared to pure BuckleypLeverett theory The effects of capillary pressure have not been solved ‘with rigorous analysis. The general impact ofthese effects can be deduced. Numerical dispersion and potential sta- bility effects set the improved formulation, Therefore, some fundamental mathematical issues in reservoir sim- ulation have not been resolved yet Research is being conducted on this problem and involves alternate mathematical techniques, such as the methods of characteristics and finite element analysis, Simulator technology is not nearly as mature as most petroleum engineers would believe. Based on Chins results, fundamental improvements in the near future are quite possible ‘The manner in which wells are handied in a simulator is based on restrictive assumptions. The equation used is based on homogeneous properties. a five spot injection pattern, and a single phase (water). Frequently. this is not particularly representative, The assumption can work adequately in many cases, At the sare time, it is easly abused and used in inappropriate situations. Regrettably. no error messages sesult. The best advice is Caveat emp- ‘or (Buyer beware). Simulators can calculate meaning: Jess results with incredible precision. Solvers have improved greatly during the years and improvements are still to come in this field. Expect some changes in this regard. [At present, this text contains relatively little detail on mathematical development. As stated in chapter 1, this can be found readily in other references on the subject. To truly understand this material, a course on how to build a simulator is highly recommended10 References ala, K,and A Settad, Petroleum Reservotr Simulation, Applied Science Publishers, 1979. Yanosik.JL..and TA, MeCracken A Nine Point Finite Difference Reservoir Simulator for Realistic Prediction of Adverse Mobility Ratio Displacements” SPE S734, Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, pp. 253-262, Aug, 1979. Agarwal, RG, "Real Gas Pseudo-Time—A New Furtction for Pressure Buildup Analysis of MHF Gas Well 8279, presented atthe 1979 SPE ATCE, Dallas. Price, HS. and KH. Coats “Direct Methods in Reservoir Simulation’ Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 1974 Craig, Fie, The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Warerfooding, SPE Monograph Vol.3 of the Henry 1. Doherty Series, 1971 Dake, |.P, Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Developments in Petroleum Science 8, Elsevier, 1978, Lake, .W, Enhanced Oi! Recovery, Prentice Hall 1989, Settari,A.,and K.Aziz"A Generalization of the Additive Contection Methods for the terative Solution of Matrix Equations” S/AM Journal of Numerical Analysis, 10,No.3, pp 506-52, Yokoyama, ¥, and L.Lake,“The Eilect of Capillary Pressure on lmmiscible Displacements in Stratified Porous Media” SPE 10109, 50% ATM of the SPE,San. Antonio Texas, 1981 Dullien, FA. Porous Media: Fluid Transport und Pore Siructure,2* ed, Academic Press, 1992. un is Mathematical Consideration Allen, MB ML.G.A Behie. and JA Tangenstein. Mutiphase Flow in Porous Media: Mechanics. Mathematies and Numerics, Springer Verlag Lecture Notes in Engineering, New York, 1991 Chin, WC. Modern Reservow Flow ond Well Fansient Anabysis, Gulf Publishing Company 1993. Chin's Wave Propagation: Chin, WC, Wore Propagation x Fetoleum Engincering,Gult Publishing Company, 198, Peaceman, DW, Interpretation of Well Block Pressures in Numerical Simulation’ Sociery of Petroleum Engineers Journal, june 1918,pp. 183-194, Transactions OF AIME 285, Odeh,AS,The Proper Interpretation of Feld Determined Buildup Pressure and Skin Values for Simulator Use’ Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal Feb. 1985, Brons and Marting,“The Etlect of Restricted Fluid Entry ‘on Well Productivity Journal Petroleum Technology. Feb, 1961, pp. 172-174 ChiericlLG.,and G.M.Ciueci Systematic Study of Gas and Water Coning by Potentiometric Models? Journal of Petroleum Technofogy. Aug. 198A Vinsome, PK:W,Orthomin, an Iterative Method for Solving Sparse Banded Sets of Simultaneous Linear Equations” SPE 5729, presented at the SPE Symposium ‘on Numerical Simulation of Reservoir Periormance. Los Angeles, Feb. 1976. > 38