Use of different mesh types to run flow simulations - workflows and synthetic case

@inproceedings{RAGUENEL_RM2021b,
 abstract = { The understanding of the subsurface, to predict rocks and fluids behaviour and extract natural resources, calls for its numerical representation. 3D models are designed to describe multi-scale information, going from the geometry of the subsurface with all its geological features to operational constraints such as well trajectories. Once discretized into a 3D mesh, this is also the support to run physical simulations, which are a mathematical representation of the multi-phase flow dynamics and geomechanical behaviors occurring underground. Therefore, each model is the result of several choices and compromises done to obtain the best possible representation depending on the problem to solve. There is no general answer to the following issues: Which mesh type is more adapted to which geological context, to which physical phenomena, or to which operational constraints? In this perspective, the choice of the type of mesh used appears as a key parameter to represent the subsurface, and each one must be tested to determine its potential benefits. Each of them also triggers several adaptations to the standard industrial workflow to run physical simulations. This poster focusses on the global workflow and some technical points. Results of a two-phase flow fluid simulation run on a synthetic model discretized with four types of unstructured meshes are presented and compared. },
 author = { Raguenel, Margaux AND Samier, Pierre AND Darche, Gilles },
 booktitle = { 2021 RING Meeting },
 publisher = { ASGA },
 title = { Use of different mesh types to run flow simulations - workflows and synthetic case },
 year = { 2021 }
}