A Generalized Wellbore and Surface
Facility Model, Fully Coupled to a
Reservoir Simulator
B.K. Coats, SPE, G.C. Fleming, SPE, J.W. Watts, SPE, and M. Ramé, Landmark Graphics, and G.S. Shiralkar, BP
Summary
The formulation of a black-oil or compositional fully coupled sur-
face and subsurface simulator is described. It is based on replacing
the well model in a conventional reservoir simulator with a gen-
eralized network model of the wells and facilities. This allows for
representation of complex wellbore geometry and downhole
equipment. The method avoids the inefficiencies and/or inaccura-
cies of other coupled models, in which wells and facilities are
treated as separate domains or in which the global system is not
solved simultaneously. Example cases demonstrate the perfor-
mance of the model for cases with simple and segmented well-
bores (with and without facilities).
Introduction and Background
The objective of our work is to develop an integrated reservoir and
facility simulator that is as efficient and general as possible. This
involves many technologies. This paper focuses on the primary
aspect of our new model that differentiates it from previous work,
specifically the manner in which domain decomposition is applied
to simulation of the coupled system of reservoirs, wells, and facilities.
Conventional Well Model. A basic example of domain decom-
position is the well model in a reservoir simulator. A simple rep-
resentation of a reservoir simulator is shown in Fig. 1. In the well
model, within each simulator Newton iteration, each well is de-
coupled from the reservoir through reservoir boundary conditions
consisting of fixed current iterate values of the perforated grid-cell
variables. Well rates and pressures are determined subject to the
well boundary conditions, which apply at the boundary with the
facilities. At the end of each simulator Newton iteration, the res-
ervoir and well equations are solved simultaneously. Most current
reservoir models implicitly represent well rates in terms of an
additional variable (to the primary reservoir cell variables), well
bottomhole pressure. Conventional well models treat the wellbore
as a mixed tank, but many include methods for explicit inclusion
of pressure losses caused by friction and acceleration through vari-
ous approximations and assumptions.
Modeling of Advanced Wells. The advent in recent years of
horizontal- and multilateral-well drilling technology and of com-
plex wellbore configurations resulting from implementation of in-
telligent completion systems has resulted in the development of
increasingly sophisticated well models for use in reservoir simu-
lation. The complex geometries, increased lengths of perforated
intervals, and potential presence of downhole-flow-control devices
in these wells, along with the need to more accurately model
low-potential recovery methods such as steam-assisted gravity
drainage, have resulted in the requirement of a much more detailed
representation of wellbore composition, rate, and pressure distri-
butions than is possible in conventional well models.
Stone et al.1 presented a three-phase, thermal, segmented well-
bore casing and tubing model implicitly coupled to a thermal dead-
Copyright © 2004 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 87913) was revised for publication from paper SPE 79704, first presented
at the 2003 SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, 3–5 February. Original manu-
script received for review 3 February 2003. Revised manuscript received 20 January 2004.
Paper peer approved 4 February 2004.
132
oil reservoir model for improved simulation of steam-assisted
gravity drainage with dual horizontal wells. Reservoir mass and
energy balances; segmented wellbore energy, momentum, and
mass balances; and the perforation-rate equations were solved si-
multaneously through Newton iteration. Capacitance was repre-
sented in the wellbore control volumes, and simultaneous annular/
tubular flow was modeled for a given wellstream. The authors
found that simulator timestep size was impractically limited for
field-scale problems when wellbore conditions were changing rap-
idly. More recently, Holmes et al.2 presented a black-oil model
with an implicit configurable segmented wellbore. Four primary
variables were included for each wellbore segment—a weighted
total flow rate, weighted fractional flows of water and gas, and
pressure. The corresponding equations were three component mass
balances and a hydraulics relationship for each segment (repre-
senting pressure drop caused by gravity, friction, and acceleration)
through correlations or hydraulics tables. The pressure equation for
the segment terminating at the well’s datum depth was replaced
with the limiting boundary condition—either a rate constraint, a
bottomhole pressure constraint, or, for wells on tubinghead pres-
sure control, a hydraulics relationship for the tubing represented by
hydraulics tables. Tables also could be used for pressure drops
across flow-control devices. Stone et al.3 then extended this work
to compositional and thermal applications. We note that these
advanced wellbore models are very similar to the network models
of facilities.
Coupled Surface/Subsurface Models. In reservoir models, flow
in the reservoir and flow between the reservoir and wellbores is
decoupled (either bottomhole or at the wellheads) from flow
through the remainder of the production and injection facilities by
specifying pressure and/or rate constraints for each well. If indi-
vidual-well rates and pressures are known from production history,
then the decoupled reservoir/well model is sufficient to match
historic reservoir behavior by specifying and matching the ob-
served boundary conditions as a function of time. However, when
used in predictive mode for reservoirs with gathering and distri-
bution networks, the proper decoupled well boundary conditions
are in general variable in time and dependent on reservoir behav-
ior, equipment performance, production strategy, hydraulics rela-
tionships, and pressure, rate, and source composition constraints
that may be applied within the surface network. When production
is controlled in the surface facilities, it is in general necessary (or
at least desirable) to include the facilities in a full-field model to
predict how the otherwise specified boundary conditions will vary
in time.
Because this is an obvious limitation of decoupled reservoir
simulation, many authors have presented methods for simulta-
neous solution of the reservoir and facility equations. Most meth-
ods are based on modification of a reservoir simulator to iteratively
converge separate solutions of the well and facility domains
(sometimes referred to as an equilibration loop) before identifying
a conventional solution of the combined reservoir and well do-
mains, as shown in Fig. 2. These methods are referred to as par-
tially coupled because at no point are all domains solved simulta-
neously. The methods differ according to the frequency of equili-
bration and the definition of final timestep convergence. If
equilibration is performed only on the first Newton iteration of
each timestep, then the surface model is coupled at the timestep
April 2004 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 Fig. 1—Reservoir model.

level. If it is performed every Newton iteration, the coupling is at

the iteration level. Falling in between, a partially iterative coupling
performs the equilibration for some number of iterations. The fre-
quency of equilibration may also be controllable in time, with a
conventionally decoupled method used between equilibrated
timesteps. The coupling method is further classified as explicit,
partially implicit, or strictly implicit with respect to the facility
solution, on the basis of the final timestep-convergence criteria
and coupling level. If only convergence of the reservoir equations
is required, then the method is explicit if coupled at the time-
step level and partially implicit if coupled at the iteration level.
If convergence of the reservoir equations and the well/facility
boundary conditions is required, then the coupling is said to be
strictly implicit because it yields an effectively implicit facility
solution, regardless of the coupling level. The overall level of the
model’s implicitness depends on the implicitness of the coupling
and on the implicitness of the variables in the equations within
each domain.
Early models, beginning in 1971 with the work of Dempsey4
for gas/water systems, used timestep-level explicit couplings of the
well and surface domains, including simple surface models inte-
grated into the reservoir model code. Extensions to black-oil sys-
Fig. 2—Partially coupled models.
tems were presented by Startzman et al.5 and Emanuel and Ranney.6
More recently, Litvak and Darlow7 presented a coupled model
with the network model integrated within a commercial black-oil the reservoir grid surrounding each well, so that the boundary
and compositional simulator. This was the first reported coupled between the reservoir and the well domains is moved from the
compositional model. They described both fully coupled and par- sandface out into the reservoir, creating overlap of the well do-
tially coupled methods, but only the partially coupled method is mains with the reservoir. The idea is to move the boundary to a set
currently implemented. The implementation by default equilibrates of surfaces at which conditions are changing less rapidly while
for two iterations in each timestep, and timestep convergence is also including parts of the reservoir grid in the well/surface equili-
based on the reservoir equations alone, resulting in a partially bration loop. A fully coupled method was also investigated, but it
implicit method. Extensions of the model to provide integration was concluded that it was inefficient for complex facilities.
with production-optimization strategies applied to BP’s Prudhoe Byer et al.14–16 extended the work of Schiozer and Aziz13 to a
Bay field,8 tabular representation of compositional dependence for fully coupled method, in which the equations for all domains are
improved efficiency,9 automatic history matching,10 and more ad- solved simultaneously at the end of each simulator Newton itera-
vanced production-optimization strategies11,12 have been presented. tion while retaining the extended definition (into the reservoir) of
Schiozer and Aziz13 showed that two acceleration techniques the well subdomains. Also provided for were domain decomposi-
applied to the iteratively coupled implicit method can improve its tion and parallel treatment within the reservoir and the facilities,
efficiency. The first technique investigated was a preconditioner and an adaptive implicit reservoir formulation. Rather than using
applied at the beginning of the timestep. It provided estimates of the explicit preconditioning method of Schiozer, a coarse-grid so-
the new time-level reservoir boundary conditions for use in the lution was performed before equilibration of the well and facilities
well/surface equilibration loop on the first Newton iteration. The domains within each Newton iteration for improved estimates of
second technique extended the well subdomains to include part of reservoir boundary conditions. It was shown that some optimal

April 2004 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 133

extent of the well subdomains into the reservoir minimized CPU
time for a given case. The coarse-grid solve and well/surface
equilibration were collectively referred to as “preconditioning.” It
was claimed that the fully coupled method could be made efficient
by including this preconditioning, but it is difficult to determine
the overall utility of the method from the results presented because
example timings were given relative to the case with no precon-
ditioning. An equivalent analysis for a conventional model with no
facilities would be to remove the well model from the Newton loop
(i.e., make the well model explicit), instead using the iterative
change in bottomhole pressures to update well rates and to com-
pare the results with those obtained using some other precondi-
tioning method.
Several models have been presented in which advanced surface
facility models developed for production engineering applications
(stand-alone facilities modeling, or facilities modeling integrated
with simplified reservoir models) are used in place of simpler
network models integrated into the reservoir code. Because the
effort required for development of these advanced network models
is comparable to that of reservoir simulators, coupling them using
the method of Fig. 2 requires very little work compared to the
effort invested in each. Hepguler et al.17 and Tingas et al.18
presented timestep-level implicit couplings of (black-oil) reser-
voir and network simulators. Trick19 extended the work of Hep-
guler et al. (using a different network model) to the iteratively
coupled implicit method and reported up to a 30-fold improvement
in efficiency.
Approach
Our method can be represented by a logical extension of Fig. 1,
with the word “Well” replaced by “Network.” The well domain
has been redefined as a single domain containing the wells and
facilities, which we call “network”. Within each simulator Newton
iteration, we solve the network through its own Newton iteration.
Within the network Newton, individual-well subdomains are de-
coupled from the network and solved, also through Newton itera-
tion. Our network model represents a decoupled facility/well simu-
lator that operates at fixed reservoir boundary conditions. The
global network and well subnetworks are solved with the same
code, except for a few minor differences.
The main advantage of our fully coupled model over partially
coupled methods is that the latter do not implicitly represent the
facility equations in their conventional reservoir/well domain solve
at the end of the Newton iteration. As a result, if the partial cou-
pling is explicit, then errors and oscillations from timestep to
timestep can occur, and if the partial coupling is implicit, iterative
oscillations and/or reduced convergence rate can occur. If the par-
tial coupling is strictly implicit, a final convergence check is re-
quired to ensure that rates and pressures at the interface of the well
and surface domains have not changed significantly; if they have,
extra simulator Newtons or timesteps are required. Otherwise, er-
rors can also occur.
Our treatment of network convergence is exactly the same as
that applied to the well model in a conventional simulator. By
default, timestep convergence is based only on the reservoir con-
servation and constraint equations. However, because of the
simultaneous global solve and prior resolution of the network,
the network equations will be converged within the accuracy of
their linearizations, assuming continuity of active constraints. An
option for specification of convergence tolerances for the perfora-
tion-rate equations is provided, mainly to test our assertion that
using it is not necessary because it does not significantly affect the
overall result.
Excluding the capability of representing facilities, our model is
very similar to the advanced well models of Stone1,3 and Holmes.2
The main difference is that our network model is steady-state,
while the advanced well models include wellbore capacitance and
are thus transient. When wellbore conditions are changing,
timestep size in the transient models is limited by the time scale
in which the nonlinearities of the wellbore flow equations can
be resolved through Newton iteration. Because our network
equations contain no time dependencies, the network model intro-
134
duces no additional timestep size limitations over those in conven-
tional simulators.
The network model represents the wellbores, pipelines, and
equipment in injection and production networks as a series of
nodes, connections between them, connections from nodes to res-
ervoir cells (perforations), and connections to sinks and from
sources. The connections are discrete 1D representations of 3D
flow paths, and nonperforation connections may be specified (or
implied through constraint specifications) as containing devices. A
set of nodes and connections representing a segmented linear or
bilateral wellbore is by default automatically generated for each
well from the input perforation data, which describe each inter-
section of perforated well casing with a reservoir grid cell. Flow
through each perforation is discretely represented as a connection
from the reservoir cell to a network node in a wellbore flow chan-
nel. Fig. 3 shows segmented and lumped wellbore configurations
that can be generated automatically for a vertical well in a carte-
sian grid with four perforations. In a lumped wellbore, all perfo-
rations for a well are attached to the same node. Complex wellbore
geometries may be created through modification of the segmented
configuration, such as the smart-well configuration also shown in
Fig. 3. Well tubing connections and modifiable tree-structured
networks can be generated automatically, or the well subnetworks
can be tied together with user-specified nodes and connections to
form production and injection networks. Rate and pressure con-
straints may be specified anywhere in the network. The model
determines which constraints are limiting and applies them implicitly.
Formulation
The global system of equations includes the reservoir conservation
and constraint equations and the network equations. The network
equations consist of perforation-rate equations, component-rate
balances at network nodes, hydraulics equations, network con-
straint equations, and composition equations. All quantities in the
network equations are treated fully implicitly unless otherwise noted.
The total number of primary network equations is given by
共Nperfs + Ncons兲Nc + Nnodes, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
corresponding to the primary variables of Nc component mass flow
rates in the Nperfs perforations and in the other Ncons network
connections, as well as pressures at network nodes. The only pri-
mary network equations that are always fixed in identity are the
component mass rate balances at nodes and hydraulics relation-
ships for connections representing flow paths that do not contain
adjustable devices. The remaining primary network equations are
dynamic, and they apply as described in each subsection.
The secondary network variables are device settings, one for
each adjustable device. In general, the number of secondary equa-
tions is equal to the number of constraints being imposed by the
adjustable devices plus the number of fixed device settings. If the
number of degrees of freedom (the number of adjustable devices
minus the number of secondary equations) is greater than zero,
there are three possible methods to obtain a solution:
• Find the optimal solution that maximizes/minimizes some
benefit/detriment function.
• Mathematically represent a production-optimization strategy
to supply the missing equations, resulting in implicit application of
the strategy.
• Explicitly apply a production-optimization strategy to deter-
mine a number of settings and/or constraints equal to the number
of degrees of freedom.
The type of optimization needed depends on the application. If the
goal is to determine which methodology would optimize produc-
tion at a given time, then the first type is needed. If the goal is to
determine how production will behave given a methodology, one
of the latter two types is needed. We have currently implemented
only the last type, explicit application of predefined and/or user-
defined predictive control logic. Active production and injection
targets on connections or groups of connections (group targets in
a conventional model) are explicitly allocated to the specified con-
trolling devices as constraints so that in the network model solu-
tion, any active constraint is controlled by adjusting a single device.
April 2004 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 Fig. 3—Wellbore configuration.
Assumptions made in the network include the following:
1. Flow is at steady state; there is no capacitance.
2. Phases are in equilibrium in the connections.
3. Phases flow concurrently in the connections.
4. Temperature may vary in space but not in time.
5. A rate constraint is controlled by a device in the connection
on which it is specified or allocated. The upstream node represents
the device inlet.
6. A minimum pressure constraint at a node is controlled by a
device in the downstream connection, with the node representing
the device inlet, and it cannot be applied when more than one
downstream connection exists.
7. A maximum pressure constraint at a node is controlled by a
device in the upstream connection, with the node representing the
device outlet, and cannot be applied when more than one upstream
connection exists.
8. A hydraulics table assigned to a device represents its oper-
ating setting (i.e., fully open for valves and chokes, maximum
operating setting for pumps and compressors), which is modified
only to impose a constraint.
9. Inline phase separations are not yet allowed, but produced
phase streams may be reinjected (directed to sources) through
explicit predictive control logic.
We intend to relax assumptions 3 through 9 in future work.
Given these assumptions, the numbers of secondary network
variables and equations are always the same and are equal to the
number of adjustable devices. The identity of the secondary equa-
tions is presented later in the subsection on Hydraulics Equations.
Reservoir Equations. All discretized reservoir simulators solve
conservation equations of the general form
Rir = Qiin − Qiout − ai + Gi − 兺
p∈pr
Qip, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
where the residual, R, of component i for each reservoir cell r is
driven to zero at full convergence of the equations. For component
April 2004 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
i, Qin
i and Qi
out
refer to flow rate across reservoir cell faces, ai is
the rate of accumulation, Gi is the rate of generation, and Qip is
the perforation rate of flow (positive for production) from reser-
voir cell r into a wellbore through perforation p. The Qip are
summed over the perforations contained in cell r. The conserved
quantities are all fluid components including water and (for
thermal models) energy.
In addition to the conservation equations, a constraint equation
is solved for each reservoir cell. For the volume balance method of
our simulator, the constraint is that the pore volume is equal to the
fluid volume, written in residual form as
RNc+1,r = VPr − VFr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
It is the convention in reservoir simulation to refer to constraint
equations as those equations that apply to variables in only one
grid cell. In the network equations, we define constraints as those
equations that specify limiting values.
In our isothermal reservoir model, the reservoir variables are
component masses and pressures for each reservoir cell.20
Perforation Equations. Neglecting capillary pressure, the mass
production rate of component i from reservoir cell r through each
producing perforation p to network node n is given by
Nphases
兺␭
Qip = Cp⌬⌽p kr ␳kr zikr , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
k=1
⌬⌽p = ⌽rp − ⌽wp, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
⌽rp = Pr + ␥r共Dp − Dr兲, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
and ⌽wp = Pn + ␥wp共Dp − Dn兲, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
where C is the wellbore constant, equal to the well index21 times
the permeability-thickness product; ␭kr is the volumetric mobility
(relative permeability/viscosity) of phase k in cell r; ␳kr is the
density of phase k in cell r; and zikr is the mass fraction of com-
135
ponent i in phase k in cell r. ⌽rp is the perforation reservoir
potential, obtained by correcting the reservoir cell pressure to per-
foration depth Dp using an explicit hydrostatic pressure gradient in
the reservoir cell, ␥r. ⌽wp is the perforation wellbore potential,
obtained by correcting the node pressure Pn to perforation depth
with the wellbore gradient ␥wp.
For injecting perforation p contained in reservoir cell r, the
component mass rate equations are not independent, and the single
equation representing the total mass perforation rate (negative for
injection) is
QTp = Cp␭Tr ␳inj
p ⌬⌽p, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
where ␭Tr is the total reservoir cell mobility (sum of ␭kr) and ␳inj
p pressure and rate solution. The addition of device-specific models
is the perforation-injected fluid density. Endpoint mobility ap-
proximations are not used in our model because the injected fluid
may be multiphase owing to multiple sources, crossflow, or rein-
jection of produced streams. The injected fluid density is treated
implicitly or explicitly and is computed from phase saturations and
densities obtained by flashing the perforation fluid composition at
perforation node pressure.
In the automated construction of segmented wellbores, the node
to which each perforation connects is placed at perforation depth,
so the wellbore gradient correction appearing in Eq. 7 is zero.
Optionally lumping the wellbore (Fig. 3) in effect creates a simple
mixed wellbore in the section of the wellbore along the perfora-
tions. An approximate explicit mixed-wellbore gradient is com-
puted for each perforation from the sum of phase densities
weighted by their saturations, which are obtained from a flash of
an average perforated grid-cell composition (weighted by the prod-
uct of phase mobilities and wellbore constant) at the node pressure.
Our formulation of the perforation-rate equations offers several
advantages over that in conventional well models. Crossflow oc-
curs automatically, depending on the perforation potential differ-
ence, without the need for additional considerations or relation-
ships. Apart from the use of mixed wellbore gradients in lumped
wellbores, wellbore hydraulics is represented as a separate rela-
tionship for each connection in the (configurable) wellbore and
is a function of connection composition and pressure. This pro-
vides a relatively simple framework for the inclusion of pressure
losses caused by friction and acceleration and for representation of
wellbore phase behavior, complex wellbore geometry, and down-
hole devices.
The perforation-rate equations (Eqs. 4 and 8) couple the reser-
voir equations to the rest of the network equations.
Network Rate Balances. The component mass rate balances for
each component i at each network node are
兺q + 兺Q = 兺q , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
ij ip ij
j∈In p∈pn j∈On
where In and On are lists of the defined inflow and outflow non-
perforation connections, respectively, at node n. Rates are negative
for flow in the reverse of the defined direction. The perforation
rates Q are summed over all perforations attached to the node. The
network rate balances are linear in the primary variables. All other
network equations, except for pressure constraints, surface volu-
metric rate constraints in black-oil systems, and explicitly treated
wellbore hydraulics equations (gradients), are nonlinear.
Hydraulics Equations. The general form of the hydraulics equa-
tion, applying to each connection j except for sinks, sources, and
perforations, is
Pjin − Pjout = f 共qជ j,P jin,P jout,Vj兲, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10)
where f is some function of rates, inflow and outflow node pres-
sures, and, if representing an adjustable device, its setting V. Given
our assumptions, it is not necessary to know the dependence of f on
V. When a device is not being adjusted to achieve a constraint
(when no constraint controlled by the device is violated), Eq. 10
applies as a primary network equation, with the device at a fixed
operating setting (V⳱Vmax is the secondary equation). Otherwise,
136
the primary network equation that applies is the rate or pressure
constraint, Eq. 10 becomes a secondary equation, and the system
is subject to an additional constraint of the form
Pjin − Pjout ⱖ f 共qជ j,Pjin,Pjout,Vjmax兲. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)
If a device is actively constraining a rate or pressure and Eq. 11
becomes violated in any network iteration, the rate or pressure
constraint is deactivated and replaced as a primary equation by Eq.
10 at V=Vmax. Also, when a rate or pressure constraint is being
applied, the device setting required to achieve the constraint may
be back-calculated from the secondary equation, Eq. 10, and the
for Eq. 10 will allow our model to predict device settings.
Currently, the hydraulics function f can be represented only
through hydrostatic pressure gradients or hydraulics tables, but
more rigorous options are being implemented. Hydrostatic gradi-
ents in connections are computed from the sum of phase densities
weighted by their saturations, which are obtained from a flash of
the connection composition to average (of the inlet and outlet
node) pressures. The treatment of composition and pressure de-
pendence can be either explicit or implicit. We default to explicit
treatment of hydrostatic gradients in the wellbore connections. We
have been completely successful in avoiding convergence prob-
lems with fully implicit treatment of hydrostatic wellbore gradients
and injected fluid densities only when we shut in crossflowing
perforations. The problems with implicit treatment arise because of
the discontinuities in the governing perforation and composition
equations on flow reversals, and also because functions of com-
position are not continuously differentiable in rate as rate changes
sign. Implicit treatment has been achieved in the reviewed ad-
vanced transient-well models, but at the expense of timestep
size limitations.
Rate and Pressure Constraints. Rate constraints may be speci-
fied on any network connection, excluding the perforations. Pres-
sure constraints may be specified on any network node. The only
restrictions on network constraints, configuration, and flow pat-
terns are:
• Minimum pressure must be specified at nodes connected to
sinks (these are “terminal” nodes), controlled in the sink connection.
• Maximum pressure must be specified on nodes connected to
sources (these are terminal nodes), controlled in the source connection.
• Terminal nodes must have exactly one inflow and one out-
flow connection (one to a source or a sink).
• All automatically generated wellbore connections between
perforation nodes are allowed to backflow; by default, all others
are not. The default may be overridden, except that sink connec-
tions are not allowed to backflow.
The terminal-node pressure constraints are always active and
applied in the source or sink connection, unless a rate constraint
controlled in the source or sink connection would be violated.
The general form of a volumetric rate constraint controlled in
connection j is
Qjmax ⱖ Qf 共qជ j,Pjin,Pjout兲, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (12)
where Qf is the result of a flash to either surface conditions
(through a specified fixed-condition separator, making the pressure
dependence zero) or to in-situ conditions.
A minimum pressure constraint controlled in connection j takes
the form
Pjin ⱖ Pmin, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)
and a maximum pressure constraint takes the form
Pjout ⱕ Pmax. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14)
Active constraints apply as equalities.
April 2004 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Composition Equations. Composition specifications are required
for each network source. For each connection j that is a flow-
ing source, the independent source composition equations that ap-
ply are
qij = zij qTj . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (15a)
and 1 ⱕ i ⱕ Nc − 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (15b)
where qTj is the total mass rate in connection j.
When a node has more than one outflowing connection, we
assume, pending the addition of inline phase separations, that each
outflowing connection has the same composition. For each pair of
network connections (including perforations) j1 and j2 flowing out
of the same node, the equal composition equations are
qij1 qij2
⳱ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (16a)
qTj1 qTj2
and 1 ⱕ i ⱕ Nc − 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (16b)
If a node has Nout outflowing connections, there are Nout–1 inde-
pendent sets of equations of this form.
Closure of the Network Equations. The number of network
equations and unknowns balance exactly for physically possible
flowing systems. This can be shown through careful accounting
and the use of the observation that
Ninj + Ncons − Nnodes = Ncomp, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (17)
where Ninj is the number of injecting perforations, Ncons is the
number of nonperforation connections, and Ncomp is the number
of independent sets of Nc–1 composition equations. “Physically
possible” means that each node has at least one inflowing and
one outflowing connection. When parts of the network are shut
in, a zero-rate constraint that is otherwise written as a single equa-
tion must sometimes be expanded to Nc equations of zero compo-
nent rate.
Solution Method
At the beginning of each simulator Newton iteration, mobilities
and densities are computed for each reservoir cell either containing
a perforation or being treated implicitly in the reservoir. These are
the variables, in addition to the reservoir grid-cell pressures and
compositions, that couple the network equations to the reservoir
equations. The network equations (Eqs. 4 through 16) are then
solved by Newton iteration, holding fixed the current iterate values
of the reservoir variables. The form of the decoupled primary
system of network equations is
冋 册冋 册 冋 册
Aff Afp ␦xf Rf
=− , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18)
Apf App ␦xp Rp
where f and p denote facility and perforation (facility designates
network equations other than the perforation-rate equations), R
denotes the residuals, and A (the Jacobian) contains the deriva-
tives of the residuals with respect to the variables x. Of those
equations designated by p, Ninj × Nc–1 of them are network com-
position equations.
At the start of each network iteration, the variable network
equations (Eqs. 10 through 16) are checked to determine which are
active. For connections representing adjustable devices, the limit-
ing constraint for a given iteration is taken as the constraint that is
most violated (i.e., hydraulics, rate, or pressure). Additional con-
straint checking is required to detect and prevent overconstrained
systems resulting from combinations of rate and pressure con-
straints. When an overconstrained system is detected, constraints
are eliminated using estimates of which constraints are limiting.
These estimates must become accurate as convergence of the ap-
plied constraints is iteratively approached.
At convergence of the network equations, the fully coupled
system of network and reservoir equations is assembled, which is
represented by
April 2004 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
冋 Aff Afp
Apf App Apr
Arp Arr
册冋 册 冋 册
␦xf
␦xp
␦xr
=−
Rf
Rp
Rr
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (19)
where r denotes reservoir, and where the terms appearing in Eq. 18
are the values from the network domain solution. The reservoir cell
mass and pressure coefficients of the perforation-rate equations,
Apr, are added to the perforation-rate equations. These include
coefficients caused by the implicit treatment of all perforated res-
ervoir cell variables.
The reservoir conservation equation (Eq. 2) residuals (Rr) and
coefficients (Arr, Arp) are then built. Arr are the coefficients caused
by intercell flow and accumulation. Arp are the coefficients of the
perforation-rate terms (Qip), and for the rows of component con-
servation equations for a cell, these are identity submatrices for
(columns corresponding to) each perforation contained in the cell.
At this point, the global system of equations has been built and
is ready for the elimination of the secondary reservoir equations
and variables. For reservoir cells using the IMPES (implicit in
pressure only) reservoir formulation, the conservation equations
(the secondary equations) are used to eliminate the mass coeffi-
cients of the cell volume constraint, Eq. 3, creating the pressure
equation, and they are also used to eliminate the cell mass coef-
ficients of the perforation-rate equations. For fully implicit reser-
voir cells, the volume constraint (the secondary equation) is used
to eliminate the mass coefficients of the last component (water) in
the reservoir conservation equations and, for cells containing per-
forations, in the perforation-rate equations. These linearized and
reduced reservoir, modified perforation, and other network equa-
tions can also be represented by Eq. 19, with the reduction having
modified the dimensions and values of Rr, Rp, Arr, Arp, and Apr and
the values of App. The equations are solved at the end of the
simulator Newton iteration with an unstructured solver, which is
described in the Appendix. The reservoir domain (Rr, Arr, xr) may
be divided into subdomains, while the network system is treated as
a single domain. Because of the form of the network equations (as
we order them), standard iterative solution techniques cannot be
applied to the network domain. We currently apply a direct solve
to the network domain using sparse elimination with partial pivoting.
Results
The first example case consists of several runs based on the SPE9
test case.22 We also present run statistics for a field application. In
all cases, we compare results from our new model (Model A) and
results from a commercial model (Model B). Model B cases,
which include production networks, use the partially coupled
method of Litvak et al.8
Statistics for all example case runs are given in Table 1, including:
• Number of timesteps.
• Number of global (outer) simulator Newton iterations.
• Number of network domain Newton iterations; these are zero
in Model A for cases decoupled bottomhole.
• Number of well subdomain Newton iterations.
• Number of global linear solver iterations.
• Total CPU time. All Case 1 runs were made on a 3.056-GHz
PC with an Intel Xeon* processor.
• CPU time in the network domain.
• CPU time in the well subdomains (part of network). For
Model B cases, this includes both the reservoir well model and the
network model and is comparable to network domain time for
Model A.
• CPU time for linear solves in network (includes well solves,
also a part of the network domain time).
• CPU time for global linear solves.
• Cumulative oil, gas, and water production.
All Model A runs use explicit wellbore gradients in the well-
bore connections and explicit injected-fluid densities. Hydraulics
tables used in the test cases are available on request.
* Trademark of Intel, Santa Clara, California.
137
Case 1. We did not attempt to individually optimize run controls
in the various SPE9 runs. All runs for a given model use the same
controls as in Case 1a.
Case 1a is the standard SPE9 test case, in which the 25 pro-
ducing wells and single injection well are controlled by rate and
bottomhole-pressure constraints. This is a difficult problem owing
to its high degree of heterogeneity, highly nonlinear relative per-
meability curves, and a step function in capillary pressure. The
reservoir formulation is fully implicit. Two runs are shown in
Table 1 for Model A, one with segmented wellbores and one with
lumped wellbores.
Case 1b modifies Case 1a to include tubing hydraulics in the
form of tables from the bottomhole datum location to the well-
heads for producers. The same table is applied to all production
wells. The injector and all rate constraints are unchanged, while
the minimum bottomhole-pressure constraints for producers in
Case 1a are replaced with minimum tubinghead-pressure con-
straints of 200 psia. Again, we present both lumped- and seg-
mented-wellbore runs for Model A.
Case 1c modifies Case 1b to include a gathering network for
the producing wells, with an identical connection (hydraulics
table) from each wellhead to its gathering node. The same table is
used for all the other surface connections. The four gathering
nodes are connected to a field node, which in turn is connected to
a terminal node representing a separator. A sink connection is
attached to the terminal node (in Model A only; the Model B
network model terminates with nodes, not connections). The pro-
duction network is shown schematically in Fig. 4. The terminal
node is constrained to a minimum pressure of 100 psia (in Model
A, by a device in the sink connection), and all other pressure
constraints are eliminated. In Model A, the well rate constraints are
applied at the well choke locations (in the connections from well-
138
heads to gathering nodes), while Model B in effect decouples wells
on rate constraint at bottomhole locations. Shown in Table 1 are a
lumped Model A run and two runs for Model B, one with default
two-iteration network coupling and one with coupling performed
every iteration (referred to here as implicit coupling).
Agreement between the models is good in all cases (using the
implicitly coupled Model B network case results), with a maxi-
mum difference of 1.7% in water production in the wellhead case
(1b). A significant difference in Model B production is observed
between different levels of coupling in the network case (1c). The
implicitly coupled run gives 4.3% more gas and 9% more water
than the run with two-iteration coupling. This demonstrates the
accuracy of Model A, the potential error with partially itera-
tive partial coupling, and that multiple runs may be required
when using partially coupled models to determine the level of
coupling needed.
In all cases, Model A efficiency in terms of total Newtons,
Newtons per step, and CPU time is significantly better than model
B. This is not related to the nature of the domain couplings but is
primarily caused by differences in the reservoir domain formula-
tions, which are not the subject of this paper.
Relative performance as tubings and gathering networks are
added is similar and is very good for both models. The partial
coupling in Model B causes no significant degradation of conver-
gence rate in this problem.
For Model A, the addition of well tubings (1b) and gathering
networks (1c) to Case 1a results in network domain Newton itera-
tions, but the well subdomain Newton efficiency (total well do-
main iterations per global Newton iteration per well) is not sig-
nificantly affected (1.2 bottomhole, 1.3 wellhead, 1.4 network).
This is because the decoupled well subdomain equations are linear,
except for any composition equations that may apply as the result
April 2004 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 Fig. 4—SPE9 network configuration.
of crossflow, when explicit gradients and injected-fluid densities
are used. The well subdomain iterations do not increase by very
much when network domain iterations are performed because
within most network domain iterations, the well subnetworks are
converged and do not require iteration.
For the Model A wellhead case (1b), network domain Newton
efficiency (network Newtons per simulator Newton) is approxi-
mately 1.5. This is significant because in this case, the network
domain includes implicit nonlinear tubing hydraulics equations.
The addition of a gathering network (1c) causes this figure to rise
to more than 3, along with a corresponding rise in network-domain
CPU time. This is because of the increased difficulty in solving
systems with multiple hydraulics functions in series.
In these cases, the Model A network model is generally less
efficient than the conventional well model with or without partially
coupled facilities in Model B. While network domain CPU time in
the network case (1c) is approximately the same as that in Model
B with implicit coupling (2.22 seconds for Model A, 2.27 for
Model B), it is 40% higher as a fraction of total run time. This is
primarily because of Model A’s use of the Newton method on a
larger system of equations.
Use of a segmented wellbore in Model A results in no differ-
ence in production and virtually no difference in performance over
the lumped case for these problems. Differences in production are
expected only when perforation-composition differences affect the
wellbore composition and pressure profile sufficiently for perfo-
ration potentials (buildup or drawdown) to be significantly af-
fected, which is not the case here. The well subdomain Newton
efficiency is almost unaffected by the wellbore treatment.
Case 2. The integrated model was benchmarked on a deep-sea oil
reservoir, modeled with two separate grids coupled through a pro-
duction network. Wells in each grid flow into a common back-
pressure manifold node. Hydraulic tables are used to model the
pressure drops in each of 25 producers. Maximum liquid rates are
specified at the wells, and a minimum manifold pressure is also
specified for the network case. The system is black-oil and fully
implicit with a total of 56,995 active cells. Pressure maintenance is
achieved through water injection.
Three sets of runs were made: Case 2a, with minimum bottom-
hole-pressure constraints specified for individual producers; Case
2b, with minimum well tubinghead-pressure constraints specified
for individual producers; and Case 2c, with minimum pressure
specified at the manifold node. Model A was run with lumped
April 2004 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
wellbores. The Model B network case was run with the default
two-iteration coupling. Of particular interest in this study was the
successful modeling of well crossflow and numerical performance.
Cases 2b and 2c are nearly physically identical problems because
of low pressure drops between the wellhead nodes and the manifold.
Table 1 gives cumulative production predictions for the three
sets of runs, normalized to the Model B Case 2a results. Differ-
ences between the models are less than 1% in the bottomhole case
and approximately 4% in the tubinghead case. While Model A
gives exactly the same production in the wellhead and network
cases as expected, Model B shows about a 6% discrepancy in oil
and gas and a 9% discrepancy in water. Model A results fall in
between the Model B wellhead and network results. Differences in
the model results are attributed to explicit treatment of tubinghead-
pressure constraints in Model B Case 2b and to the two-iteration
partial coupling in Model B Case 2c.
Table 1 clearly shows the improvement in efficiency gained by
the new formulation. While improvements in global Newton effi-
ciency will be the subject of a future paper, what is of most interest
here is the change in outer iterations and CPU time between the
wellhead case (2b) and the network case (2c). While adding the
network to Model B causes Newton iterations to increase by more
than 40% and CPU time to increase by 50%, these figures are
virtually unchanged for the new formulation. This is directly at-
tributable to the fully coupled method.
Conclusions
1. Complete integration of a facilities model with a conventional
well model yields a fully coupled formulation with configurable
gridded wellbore capabilities.
2. The generalized formulation is a highly efficient and accurate
method for coupling surface facility and reservoir models, and
for conventional simulation of decoupled systems.
3. Complex preconditioners are not required for fully coupled ef-
ficiency, contrary to previous assertions.
4. Segmented wellbores can be modeled with very little perfor-
mance penalty over cases with simple mixed wellbores.
Nomenclature
a ⳱ rate of accumulation
A ⳱ Jacobian matrix
C ⳱ wellbore constant
D ⳱ depth
e ⳱ vector of ones
139
 G ⳱ rate of generation 2. Holmes, J.A., Barkve, T., and Lund, O.: “Application of a Multiseg-
I ⳱ defined inflow connections ment Well Model to Simulate Flow in Advanced Wells,” paper SPE
N ⳱ number of 50646 presented at the 1998 SPE European Petroleum Conference, The
O ⳱ defined outflow connections Hague, 20–22 October.
3. Stone, T.W. et al.: “Thermal Simulation with Multisegment Wells,”
P ⳱ pressure
paper SPE 66373 presented at the 2001 SPE Reservoir Simulation
q ⳱ mass flow rate Symposium, Houston, 11–14 February.
Q ⳱ mass or volumetric flow rate 4. Dempsey, J.R. et al.: “An Efficient Method for Evaluating Gas Field
R ⳱ residual Gathering System Design,” JPT (September 1971) 1067.
V ⳱ volume 5. Startzman, R.A. et al.: “Computer Combines Offshore Facilities and
x ⳱ vector of unknowns Reservoir Forecasts,” Petroleum Engineer (May 1977) 65.
z ⳱ mass fraction 6. Emanuel, A.S. and Ranney, J.C.: “Studies of Offshore Reservoir With
␥ ⳱ pressure gradient an Interfaced Reservoir/Piping Network Simulator,” JPT (March 1981)
␭ ⳱ mobility 399.
␳ ⳱ mass density 7. Litvak, M.L. and Darlow, B.L.: “Surface Network and Well Tubing-
head Pressure Constraints in Compositional Simulation,” paper SPE
⌽ ⳱ potential
29125 presented at the 1995 SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation,
San Antonio, Texas, 12–15 February.
Subscripts
8. Litvak, M.L. et al.: “Integration of Prudhoe Bay Surface Pipeline Net-
B ⳱ black work and Full Field Reservoir Models,” paper SPE 38885 presented at
c ⳱ components the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San An-
comp ⳱ composition equations tonio, Texas, 5–8 October.
cons ⳱ nonperforation connections 9. Litvak, M.L and Wang, C.H.: “Integrated Reservoir and Surface Pipe-
f ⳱ facility equations line Network Compositional Simulations,” paper SPE 48859 presented
F ⳱ fluid at the 1998 SPE International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition
G ⳱ global in China, Beijing, 2–6 November.
10. Litvak, M.L., Macdonald, C.J., and Darlow, B.L.: “Validation and
i ⳱ component
Automatic Tuning of Integrated Reservoir and Surface Pipeline Net-
inj ⳱ injecting perforations
work Models,” paper SPE 56621 presented at the 1999 SPE Annual
j ⳱ connection Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 3–6 October.
k ⳱ phase 11. Litvak, M.L. et al.: “Prudhoe Bay E-Field Production Optimization
max ⳱ maximum System Based on Integrated Reservoir and Facility Simulation,” paper
min ⳱ minimum SPE 77643 presented at the 2002 SPE Annual Technical Conference
n ⳱ node, network and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 29 September–2 October.
nodes ⳱ nodes 12. Wang, P., Litvak, M.L., and Aziz, K.: “Optimization of Production
out ⳱ outflowing connections Operations in Petroleum Fields,” paper SPE 77658 presented at the
p ⳱ perforation, perforation equations 2002 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
Texas, 29 September–2 October.
P ⳱ pore
13. Schiozer, D.J. and Aziz, K.: “Use of Domain Decomposition for Si-
perfs ⳱ perforations
multaneous Simulation of Reservoir and Surface Facilities,” paper SPE
phases ⳱ phases 27876 presented at the 1994 SPE Western Regional Meeting, Long
r ⳱ reservoir grid cell, or reservoir domain Beach, California, 23–25 March.
R ⳱ red 14. Byer, T.J., Edwards, M.G., and Aziz, K.: “Preconditioned Newton
Schur ⳱ Schur complement Methods for Fully Coupled Reservoir and Surface Facility Models,”
T ⳱ total paper SPE 49001 prepared for presentation at the 1998 SPE Annual
w ⳱ well Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 27–30 September.
15. Byer, T.J., Edwards, M.G., and Aziz, K: “A Preconditioned Adaptive
Superscripts Implicit Method for Reservoirs With Surface Facilities,” paper SPE
in ⳱ inflow 51895 presented at the 1999 SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium,
Houston, 14–17 February.
inj ⳱ injected
16. Byer, T.J.: “Preconditioned Newton Methods for Simulation of Reser-
min ⳱ minimum voirs with Surface Facilities,” PhD dissertation, Stanford U. (2000).
max ⳱ maximum 17. Hepguler, G., Barua, S., and Bard, W.: “Integration of a Field Surface
out ⳱ outflow and Production Network With a Reservoir Simulator,” SPECA (June
0 ⳱ initial 1997) 88.
18. Tingas, J., Frimpong, R., and Liou, J.: “Integrated Reservoir and Sur-
Overbars face Network Simulation in Reservoir Management of Southern North
A single tilde, as in Ã, denotes an array or vector after elimination Sea Gas Reservoirs,” paper SPE 50635 presented at the 1998 SPE
of the red unknowns. A double tilde, as in Ø, denotes an array or European Petroleum Conference, The Hague, 20–22 October.
vector after elimination of the red and network unknowns. 19. Trick, M.D.: “A Different Approach to Coupling a Reservoir Simulator
With a Surface Facilities Model,” paper SPE 40001 presented at the
Acknowledgments 1998 SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, 15–18 March.
We gratefully acknowledge significant contributions made by 20. Shiralkar, G.S. et al.: “Falcon: A Production Quality Distributed
Terry Wong, Dominic Camilleri, Richard Hinkley, Ron Moss- Memory Reservoir Simulator,” SPEREE (October 1998) 400.
barger, and Shahin Abasov. We also thank Landmark Graphics for 21. Peaceman, D.W.: “Interpretation of Well-Block Pressures in Numerical
permission to publish this work and BP for allowing us to present Reservoir Simulation with Nonsquare Grid Blocks and Anisotropic
results of their field application. Permeability,” SPEJ (June 1983) 531.
22. Killough, J.E.: “Ninth SPE Comparative Solution Project: A Re-
References examination of Black Oil Simulation,” paper SPE 29110 presented at
1. Stone, T.W., Edmunds, N.R., and Kristoff, B.J.: “A Comprehensive the 1995 SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San Antonio,
Wellbore/Reservoir Simulator,” paper SPE 18419 presented at the 1989 Texas, 12–15 February.
SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, Houston, 6–8 February. 23. Appleyard, J.R.: “Nested Factorization,” paper SPE 12264 presented at

140 April 2004 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 the 1983 SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, San Francisco, 15–18 We next eliminate the red unknowns from Eq. A-4, yielding the
November. reduced matrix equation, which is of the form

冋 册冋 册 冋 册
24. Wallis, J.R.: “Incomplete Gaussian Elimination as a Preconditioning
for Generalized Conjugate Gradient Acceleration,” paper SPE 12265 Ãnn ÃnB xn −R̃0n
= , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-5)
presented at the 1983 SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, San Fran- ÃBn ÃBB xB −R̃B0
cisco, 15–18 November.
25. D’Azevedo, E., Forsyth, P.A., and Tang, W.-P.: “An Automatic Or- where
dering Method for Incomplete Factorization Iterative Solvers,” paper −1
Ãnn = Ann − AnR ARR ARn, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-6a)
SPE 21226 presented at the 1991 SPE Reservoir Simulation Sympo-
−1
sium, Anaheim, California, 17–20 February. ÃBn = ABn − ABR ARR ARn, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-6b)
26. D’Azevedo, E.F., Forsyth, P.A., and Tang, W.-P.: “Towards a Cost-
−1
Effective ILU Preconditioner with High Level Fill,” BIT (1992) 32, No. ÃnB = AnB − AnR ARR ARB, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-6c)
3, 442. −1
27. Saad, Jousef: Iterative Methods for Sparse Linear Systems, second ÃBB = ABB − ABR ARR ARB, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-6d)
edition, Soc. of Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, −1 0
R̃0n = R0n − AnR ARR RR, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-6e)
Pennsylvania (2003).
−1 0
and R̃B0 = RB0 − ABR ARR RR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-6f)
Appendix—The Linear Equation Solver
At each Newton iteration, it is necessary to solve the following We actually solve the reduced matrix equation, Eq. A-5, rather
global matrix equation. than the original global matrix equation, Eq. A-1. We obtain xR

冋 册冋 册 冋 册
by backsolving.
Ann Anr xn −R0n To solve Eq. A-5, we construct an approximate factorization of
= . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-1) it using the nested factorization column sum principle.23 The form
Arn Arr xr −Rr0 of the factorization is
Ann and Anr contain the network equation coefficients that multiply
network and reservoir unknowns, respectively. Arn and Arr contain
the reservoir equation coefficients that multiply these same un-
knowns; xn and xr are the network and reservoir unknown vectors,
冋 册 冋 册冋
Ãnn ÃnB
ÃBn ÃBB
≅
Ãnn 0
ÃBn ØBB
I Ã−1
0
nn ÃnB
I
册
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-7)

respectively. The network unknowns are pressures at network
nodes and component rates on network connections, including
perforations. The reservoir unknowns are cell pressures if IMPES
is being used and cell pressures and masses if the calculations are
fully implicit. R0n and Rr0 are the initial residual vectors.
To solve the global matrix equation, it is necessary to solve
subproblems of the form
Ann␦xn = −Rn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-2)
and Arr␦xr = −Rr , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-3)
where Rn and Rr are residual vectors. Eq. A-2 is equivalent to Eq.
19. To solve Eq. A-2, we use sparse Gaussian elimination with row
pivoting. To decrease the cost of solving Eq. A-3, we perform a
red/black reduction. We determine the cell colors as follows.
1. Designate all cells to be uncolored.
2. Designate the first cell as red. This creates the first group of
red cells.
3. Find all uncolored cells connected to the latest group of red
cells. Designate these to be black.
4. Find all uncolored cells connected to the latest group of
black cells (from Step 3). These are candidates to be red. Designate
the first one to be red. Cell by cell within this group, determine
whether each cell is connected to any red cell. If it is not, designate
it to be red. If it is connected to a red cell, designate it to be black.
The red cells identified in this step become the next group of
red cells.
5. Repeat Steps 3 and 4 until no connected uncolored cells can
be found.
6. Search all cells for an uncolored cell. If one is found, des-
ignate it to be red, and return to Step 3.
On a structured grid, this procedure yields the normal check-
erboard pattern. The procedure results in two lists, one containing
the red cells and the other containing the black cells. Given these
lists, we can partition Arr and rewrite Eq. A-1 as follows.
where ØBB = ÃBB − diag共ÃBnÃ−1
nn ÃnBe 兲; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-8)
e is the column vector having all of its entries equal to one, and
diag(x) is the diagonal matrix having on its diagonal the entries of
the column vector x.
We need a preconditioner for ØBB. If the reservoir equations are
IMPES, we need a preconditioner for the IMPES pressure equa-
tion. If they are fully implicit, we use Wallis’ constrained pressure
residual (CPR) method,24 which also requires a preconditioner for
the pressure equation. In either event, we need a preconditioner for
the pressure equation; for this, we use incomplete lower triangular-
upper triangular (ILU) factorization. To improve performance of
the preconditioner, we do two things:
• Reorder the unknowns and equations in a way that reduces
the amount of infill. Our procedure is similar to but simpler than
that described by D’Azevedo et al.25,26 In deciding which un-
known to eliminate next, we determine the infill that would be
generated by each possibility and eliminate the unknown that gen-
erates the smallest infill. Here, infill is computed as the sum of the
magnitudes of all infill coefficients that would be introduced into
the matrix during the elimination of this particular unknown.
• Determine which infill coefficients to retain on the basis of
their sizes. The procedure is similar to Saad’s ILUT (ILU that
discards infill larger than a specified threshold).27 We retain a
possible infill coefficient if its magnitude is larger than 0.007 times
the magnitude of the diagonal coefficient in the row in which it falls.
The process of reordering the unknowns and determining
which potential infill to retain is quite expensive computationally.
As a result, we create a template containing the information needed
to perform and use the factorization. The template is constructed at
the beginning of a run on the basis of the matrix coefficients for the
first Newton iteration of the first timestep. It can be updated from
time to time later in the run if needed.
SI Metric Conversion Factors

冤 冥冤 冥 冤 冥
ARR ARn ARB xR −RR0
bbl × 1.589 873 E – 01 ⳱ m3
AnR Ann AnB xn = −R0n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-4)
ft3 × 2.831 685 E – 02 ⳱ m3
ABR ABn ABB xB −RB0 psi × 6.894 757 E + 00 ⳱ kPa
The R and B subscripts denote red and black cells, respectively.
ARR is diagonal for the IMPES pressure equation and block diago- Brian K. Coats is a senior technical advisor with Landmark
nal for the fully implicit set of equations. As a result, it can be Graphics, where he continues his work in reservoir simulation
inverted economically. (which began at J.S. Nolen and Assocs. and continued at

April 2004 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 141

Western Atlas Software) in development of the VIP family of
reservoir simulators. e-mail: bcoats@lgc.com. Coats is a princi-
pal author of VIP-THERM and has authored several technical
papers. He holds BS and MS degrees in chemical engineering
from the U. of Texas at Austin. Graham C. Fleming is a senior
technical advisor for Landmark Graphics Corp. in Houston. e-
mail: gfleming@lgc.com. He is the development team leader
for Landmark’s next-generation simulator project. Before join-
ing Landmark, Fleming worked 18 years in various positions for
Arco Exploration and Production Technology, most recently as
Director of Reservoir Simulator Development. He holds a BE
degree in engineering science from the U. of Auckland and a
PhD degree in applied mechanics from the California Inst. of
Technology. J.W. Watts is a consultant working under contract
to Landmark Graphics and ExxonMobil Upstream Research
Co. in Houston. e-mail: bwatts@lgc.com. Before becoming a
consultant, he was with Mobil Research and Development
Corp., Scientific Software Corp., and Exxon Production Re-
search Co. Watts holds BS and PhD degrees in chemical en-
gineering from Tulane U. He has been a member of the JPT
142
Editorial Committee, the SPE Annual Meeting Program Com-
mittee, the Cedric K. Ferguson Medal Award Committee, and
the SPE Journal Editorial Board. In addition, he has served as a
member and chairman of program committees for SPE Reser-
voir Simulation symposia; a member of the Monograph Com-
mittee; and a Technical Editor and Review Chairman for SPE
Computer Applications. He gave the keynote address at the
1997 SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium. Marcelo Ramé is a
technical advisor with Landmark Graphics, where he works in
the area of iterative linear solvers for reservoir simulation. e-
mail: mrame@lgc.com. Previously, he worked for the Center
for Research in Parallel Computing, a Natl. Science Founda-
tion Center located on the Rice U. campus. Ramé holds a BS
degree from the U. of Buenos Aires, an MS degree from Lehigh
U., and a PhD degree from the U. of Houston, all in chemical
engineering. Gautam S. Shiralkar is a consulting engineer with
BP’s Technology group in Houston. e-mail: shiralgs@bp.com.
He holds a B.Tech degree from the Indian Inst. of Technology,
an MS degree from MIT, and a PhD degree from the U. of
California, Berkeley, all in mechanical engineering.
April 2004 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering