Skip to content

feat: Add functions to connect well perforation to surface elements #3359

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 114 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

paveltomin
Copy link
Contributor

@paveltomin paveltomin commented Sep 19, 2024

should go after #3227

  • move calculateElementCenters for subregions earlier into ProblemManager::generateMeshLevel, so cell centers for surface elements are available when well perforation is processed
  • remove registerWrapper for elementCenter and elementVolume in EmbeddedSurfaceSubRegion, they already registered in the base class
  • modify getReservoirElementDimensions/getBoundingBox to support SurfaceElementSubRegion
  • add SurfaceElementSubRegion version of isPointInsideElement and helper functions isPointInPolygon2d/3d

(not super refined implementation but something to start working with)

@paveltomin
Copy link
Contributor Author

@CusiniM, @castelletto1, @jhuang2601, @rrsettgast please review

Comment on lines 240 to 243
elemManager.forElementSubRegions< CellElementSubRegion, FaceElementSubRegion >( [&] ( auto const & subRegion )
{
subRegion.calculateElementCenters( X );
} );
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I find a bit weird that a function in FaceManager called computeGeometry takes care of computed element centers of the subregions. Also, do the fracture elements even exist at this point? I am assuming this occurs way before the event loop in which the surfacegenerator creates the fractures.

dy = boxDims[ 1 ];
dz = boxDims[ 2 ];

if( dx < 1e-10 )
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

what's the meaning of this value?

(point[0] <= std::max( p1[0], p2[0] )))
{
real64 const xIntersect = (point[1] - p1[1]) * (p2[0] - p1[0]) / (p2[1] - p1[1]) + p1[0];
if( std::abs( p1[0] - p2[0] ) < 1e-10 || point[0] <= xIntersect )
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

the tolerance seems a bit arbitrary, doesn't it?

}

// remove duplicates
std::unordered_set< Point3d, PointHash< Point3d >, PointsEqual< Point3d > >
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why would there be duplicates? is it because of the duplicated nodes?

@paveltomin paveltomin added the ci: run integrated tests Allows to run the integrated tests in GEOS CI label Mar 3, 2025
@paveltomin paveltomin added flag: no rebaseline Does not require rebaseline and removed flag: requires rebaseline Requires rebaseline branch in integratedTests labels Mar 6, 2025
@paveltomin paveltomin removed the ci: run integrated tests Allows to run the integrated tests in GEOS CI label Mar 9, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
flag: no rebaseline Does not require rebaseline flag: ready for review type: feature New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants