A simple error. In addition, how to calculate the absolutely permeability of the porous medium? #15
Comments
|
Another one,why there are some negative numbers in the velosity,every direction has negative numbers. Thanks for your code and reply! |
|
Hi Xiangwu, thanks for your help on identifying the bug.
To calculate permeability is not difficult, it is based on darcy's law, as
we are working on a discrete space, there are several ways to do it. I can
share with you what I did before, I calculate total flux Q_total (basically
sum up all velocities), then divide them by volume V_total (q =
Q_total/V_total), if you have pressure difference dp, then you need to use
dp/Lx or dp/Ly or dp/Lz to calculate the pressure gradient, if you're using
bodyforce to drive the flow, then you can simply use fx, or fy, or fz for
pressure gradient.
You can calculate permeability K = q * u (viscosity)/(fx) for body force
case, or K = q* u(viscosity)/(dp/Lx) for pressure drop case.
I don't understand your second question very well, what do you mean there
are some negative numbers in velocity? Could you be more specific? Thanks.
…On Wed, 5 Jul 2023 at 04:11, xiangWu-WW ***@***.***> wrote:
Another one,why there are some negative numbers in the velosity,every
direction has negative numbers. Thanks for your code and reply!
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#15 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJEDKQBAPRGPYMBPA3ASMCDXOTLPVANCNFSM6AAAAAAZ6K3ZFM>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
Thanks for your timely reply. As you told, i calculate the absolutely permeability of a Plane model which width is 10px. Theoretically，the result is 1010(pixel resolution)/12=8.33 um2.（Assuming resolution is 1um/px）.But the result is 0.002573, i wonder how to contact the two different results. Further more, as you can see, in the Python printed,the velocity has negative value,but in the simulating result it is not clear, what does the negative values mean? |
|
Hi XiangWu,
I think there are several things you can check, first of all, v is an
"array" of dimension of 4, so if you want to show the min of x direction ,
it should be something like np.min(vel[:, :, :, 0]).
And we calculate K in three directions, so we should use something like
np.sum(vel[:, :, :, 0]) in the permeability calculation, and you need to
use corresponding bodyforce/pressure gradient of same direction
Last thing is more about LBM boundary conditions, several personal
comments:
- LBM pressure boundary condition is reliable when the boundary rho is
around 1, I saw that you are using rho=0.1 for one of the boundaries, it
will make the simulation not very stable, my personal experience is that I
only use rho between 0.95-1.05.
- Big pressure gradient need longer time to reach equilibrium,
- I recommend you only use uniform bodyforce + periodic boundary
condition (default) to drive the flow, this is the most accurate and stable
solution
Thanks
Jianhui
…On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 at 06:13, xiangWu-WW ***@***.***> wrote:
Thanks for your timely reply. As you told, i calculate the absolutely
permeability of a Plane model which width is 10px. Theoretically，the result
is 10*10*(pixel resolution)/12=*8.33 um2*.（Assuming resolution is
1um/px）.But the result is *0.002573*, i wonder how to contact the two
different results. Further more, as you can see, in the Python printed,the
velocity has negative value,but in the simulating result it is not clear,
what does the negative values mean?
[image: PlaneModel]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/83948137/251349662-35ac64c7-adae-4def-920d-4680f3e44a2f.png>
[image: codes20230706124853]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/83948137/251349611-23b512ad-2b0c-4a9f-b97c-bc4ff809368e.jpg>
[image: Uploading PlaneModel.png…]
[image: result1]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/83948137/251349709-5e1aa049-14ff-4b9d-aa7d-bf35cd3dbb14.png>
[image: result2]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/83948137/251349747-eec7001e-90d8-486f-b143-b8b8635cc81f.png>
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#15 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJEDKQHNO2QZDTDQSSXVJPLXOZCOBANCNFSM6AAAAAAZ6K3ZFM>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
Hi Dr.Yang Thank for your response！ Then i change the formula to calculate the K(K = q* u(viscosity)/(dp/Lx)): Further more, where the rho has a berak in the begin and end: Finally,as you mentioned,add body force to force the fluid,how to change the code,is it simplely change: Thanks！ |
|
Hi xiangWu,
1.0 and 0.9 looks too big difference for me. your mesh resolution can't
handle it. Please try 1.0 and 0.99 if you want to use pressure BC
the unit for your case if your resolution is 1um/dx, then calculated K unit
should be um^2, because you are calculating K in lattice unit, but the
dimensionality of permeability is L^2 so to convert LBM K to real physics K
is K_lbm/(resolution*resolution)
Please refer to this documents for more information about unit conversion
in LBM:
https://www.biofm-research.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Krueger_Edmonton_scaling.pdf
When you use body force, have you remove these two lines?
lb3d.set_bc_rho_z1(0.9)
lb3d.set_bc_rho_z0(1.0)
…On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 at 10:58, xiangWu-WW ***@***.***> wrote:
Hi Dr.Yang
Thank for your response！
The BC is:
lb3d.set_bc_rho_z1(0.9)
lb3d.set_bc_rho_z0(1.0)
Then i change the formula to calculate the K(K = q* u(viscosity)/(dp/Lx)):
vel = self.v.to_numpy()
K = np.sum(vel[:,:,:,2])/(self.nx*self.ny*self.nz)*self.niu/((3/8*
(1-0.9))/self.nz)#rho_in=1,rho_out=0.9,P=3/8*rho
The result converge at 1.122(Platemodel, width=10px）。What is the unit of
the result, 1 Darcy? I wonder is there any problem in the formula.
Further more, where the rho has a berak in the begin and end:
slice1 1
slice2 0.960676
…
slice-2 0.93958
slice-1 0.9
Finally,as you mentioned,add body force to force the fluid,how to change
the code,is it simplely change:
self.fx,self.fy,self.fz = 0.0e-6,0.0,0.0
i tried this,but the result hardly convergent.
Thanks！
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#15 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJEDKQDTOEHWI3KPTJM6DRDXO2D3TANCNFSM6AAAAAAZ6K3ZFM>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
Hi Dr.Yang, I set the body force as you told me.The model is a 128^3 cubic and there is a plate(Aperture = 20, assert the pixel resolution is 1um/px ) in the model.Theoretically，the absolutely permeability is 400/12=33.3um^2. The formula to calculate the K is q*u/f *resolution^2. 
|
|
Hi XiangWu,
It looks to me that the calculation of absolute premability of your model
is independent of your model size? ... Which looks not quite right for me
I think if you want to check if the model is doing the right thing, the
best thing is to check the velocity field, in your model, it is a
poiseuille flow, you can easily find analytical solutions for this problem,
then you can compare to LB simulations. If you can confirm the velocity
calculation is correct, there is no way the permeability calculation is
wrong...
You can refer to this book for more information about
poiseuille flow: Lattice Boltzmann Modeling: An Introduction for
Geoscientists and Engineers by Michael C. Sukop, Daniel T. Thorne. I also
give you some snapshot for reference:
[image: image.png]
[image: image.png]
The last question about the rho, if we use body force, we normally don't
change the rho too much, it means we would actually have a very uniform rho
over the computing domain. If you check your visualization scale bar, you
can find rho actually doesn't change too much, the difference of rho over
space is more or less same as machine precision level, so you got very
rough visualization, but actually it's a uniform field.
…On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 at 08:51, xiangWu-WW ***@***.***> wrote:
Hi Dr.Yang,
I set the body force as you told me.The model is a 128^3 cubic and there
is a plate(Aperture = 20, assert the pixel resolution is 1um/px ) in the
model.Theoretically，the absolutely permeability is 400/12=33.3um^2. The
formula to calculate the K is q*u/f *resolution^2.
But the result is 1.69um^2， i wonder the q=Qsum/Vtotal or q = Qsum(Pore) /
Vtotal(Pore), If it is the latter，the result will be 1.69/(20/128)=10.8um^2.
Additionaly, why the rho distribution is so disordered.
[image: _020230722154949]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/83948137/255318404-d5706b25-e204-4fa5-b31d-1f158ced7c90.png> [image:
2023-07-22_153703]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/83948137/255318409-26d1f174-7df3-4fc3-97bb-0e1bffe13d33.png> [image:
20230722153629]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/83948137/255318411-a06ae74f-b7dc-46b8-b469-e04712987938.png> [image:
20230722153553]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/83948137/255318425-54e54074-c858-4c0e-a439-dab6afa6d2a0.png>
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#15 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJEDKQCHD3BT4IO6BLGXZ3LXROA75ANCNFSM6AAAAAAZ6K3ZFM>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
I would like to ask how I should calculate the pressure gradient? |
ΔP = cs^2 * (Δρ). |
|
The pressure gradient is only related to density and length. Doesn't it have anything to do with the stamina or initial speed I set? |
|
Like other methods, if you use pressure boundary condition for a boundary,
you can't apply velocity, the velocity will be calculated by the programme.
The same for velocity condition, if you use velocity condition for a
surface, the pressure will be calculated. The value in the input won't do
anything then.
That's why you need to select which BC you want (for all 6 out surfaces), 0
= periodic, 1=pressure, 2=velocity
…On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 at 02:10, hangqqq ***@***.***> wrote:
The pressure gradient is only related to density and length. Doesn't it
have anything to do with the stamina or initial speed I set?
LNHFU2DRW_K056AL.XLFD.png (view on web)
<https://github.com/yjhp1016/taichi_LBM3D/assets/140054215/28699c07-d1b8-4c45-94e3-991d921d5a9f>
HH6J.C2Y2CWJ.6A.1U.WI.png (view on web)
<https://github.com/yjhp1016/taichi_LBM3D/assets/140054215/d1151535-e4e1-4d65-9890-a227ae406791>
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#15 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJEDKQE6IGWOSSUUH2PFZV3YHZ7CHAVCNFSM6AAAAAAZ6K3ZFOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQMZZHA3TSOBSHE>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Why is there such a sudden change in value?
|
|
It means the program didn't converge, the boundary condition and flow
properties are set too tough for this solver.
LBM use fix dx and dt, so need.to be careful to keep the simulation stable.
hangqqq ***@***.***> 于 2024年1月11日周四 上午2:03写道：
… image.png (view on web)
<https://github.com/yjhp1016/taichi_LBM3D/assets/140054215/e31cca7e-ea66-4b06-851a-ba97f03c6f5f> image.png
(view on web)
<https://github.com/yjhp1016/taichi_LBM3D/assets/140054215/ec253709-ea0b-487d-b274-151e22d262d1>
Why is there such a sudden change in value?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#15 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJEDKQANXAPDVPGZTEAXZ5DYN5CAXAVCNFSM6AAAAAAZ6K3ZFOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQOBWGA3TSMBSHA>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
Hi Dr.Yang,"I am using the LBM2phase program and I would like to know how to calculate the relative permeability of two phases?" |
|
Personally I don't think calculating rel perm in 2D is a quite good idea,
as in 3D there will be some corner structures in porous medium, the wetting
phase will occupy the corners but non-wetting phase still in center, so you
will see wetting phase perm is still connected by these small corner
channels even at low wetting phase saturation. But in 2D, the wetting phase
need to build a connecting flow path between inlet and outlet, to have a
wetting phase perm bigger than 0. So seems not very realistic compared to
real scenario. But you can still try, using similar approach we cal 3D
relative permeability. (I explain the method in another post, please refer
to that post)
…On Fri, 17 May 2024 at 08:03, hangqqq ***@***.***> wrote:
Hi Dr.Yang,"I am using the LBM2phase program and I would like to know how
to calculate the relative permeability of two phases?"
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#15 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJEDKQBGE3ACSJ2JQYUCPZ3ZCWTSHAVCNFSM6AAAAAAZ6K3ZFOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMJWHA4DOOBQGI>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
Hi Dr.Yang， |
|
It's possible, maybe your porous medium is good at connectivity and is
water wet, the invading phase is easy to enter... But you need to check
visualizations to see if the whole invading process makes sense
…On Thu, 23 May 2024 at 09:20, hangqqq ***@***.***> wrote:
Hi Dr.Yang，
"I am using the LBM-3d-2phase program and giving different initial phase
distributions with one initial invading phase occupying 10% and another
occupying 25%. However, by the time I output after 800000 iterations, the
invading phase occupies almost 90% in both cases. Is this normal?"
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#15 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJEDKQEZAUZ67VJ4523YX33ZDWRFVAVCNFSM6AAAAAAZ6K3ZFOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMRWGUYTENZTG4>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
Dr. Yang, what should I do to adjust dx and dt to keep the simulation stable, because the model I first did the displacement was unstable at about 50% saturation. |
|
dx can be adjusted by building a finer mesh, in this model I make dt as
const, it will need some modifications before you can change dt. So I
would suggest you use a finer mesh resolution instead.
…On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 at 12:35, RiverNight666 ***@***.***> wrote:
Dr. Yang, what should I do to adjust dx and dt to keep the simulation
stable, because the model I first did the displacement was unstable at
about 50% saturation.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#15 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJEDKQEL2OTM5BZ5UPPBELD2ACQAXAVCNFSM6AAAAABRRX3PZGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDINRYGA3TKNZXGU>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: