Skip to content

Remove filterconnections call#2041

Closed
joakim-hove wants to merge 1 commit into
OPM:masterfrom
joakim-hove:remove-filter-connections
Closed

Remove filterconnections call#2041
joakim-hove wants to merge 1 commit into
OPM:masterfrom
joakim-hove:remove-filter-connections

Conversation

@joakim-hove

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Followup to: OPM/opm-common#1059

@GitPaean

GitPaean commented Oct 4, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

sorry if I am not following this closely. But what is the plan to handle the well connections that specified in a cell that is removed due to MINPV and PINCH?

@atgeirr

atgeirr commented Oct 4, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I'll try to answer that: the filtering is unnecessary because the EclipseGrid object already deactivated cells due to MINPV before we constructed the Schedule object, and filtered them at Schedule construction time. At least that is the hope, we now want to test that this holds in practice and did not forget about something.

@GitPaean

GitPaean commented Oct 4, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Thanks. It sounds good and I can make some test running from my side.

@joakim-hove joakim-hove force-pushed the remove-filter-connections branch from 6d185b3 to 64938c1 Compare October 4, 2019 09:41
@joakim-hove joakim-hove force-pushed the remove-filter-connections branch from 64938c1 to 3210e11 Compare October 4, 2019 11:12
@blattms

blattms commented Oct 30, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I have the feeling that some part (maybe MSW) in a parallel run is relying on connections being filtered.
At least that would be an explanation for #2101

@GitPaean

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I have the feeling that some part (maybe MSW) in a parallel run is relying on connections being filtered.

I am not totally sure about what you mean here. Basically, if a connection is filtered, it will not enter the well model. When we remove the connections, we should make all the usage might be related consistent, which means the connection is filtered everywhere.

@blattms

blattms commented Oct 30, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Did anybody test this on model2?

@GitPaean

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Did anybody test this on model2?

Some relisations of model 2 are the reason to introduce the filtering of connection to deactivated cells.

As reported in OPM/opm-common#1059 , yes.

I believe that was a serial running.

@joakim-hove

joakim-hove commented Oct 30, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Did anybody test this on model2?

yes - @GitPaean did and found one realization failing; I got that realization and investigated further. To me it actually seemed like a bug/unexpected behavior deep down in the C code processing the grdecl input; at that stage I lost steam - but it is still on my intend-ot-look-more-into list.

@GitPaean

I believe that was a serial running.

yes - the failure I found was not related to parallell.

@blattms

blattms commented Oct 30, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@atgeirr Well, it turns out that we are creating the grid only after creating of the schedule, The schedule is created at flow.cpp#L349 and passed to ebos somewhere further down. Setting the deck is done in function flowEbos*SetDeck before creating the simulator (and the actual grid) in the next function call (flowEbos*Main). That seems to be a rather unnatural way to construct things. All members that can be set externally in EclBaseVanguard are static to be able to construct them before the actual instances.

@GitPaean

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

We will probably do this following the discussion in #6787 . Some other PR will be opened based on this one or a totally new one.

@GitPaean GitPaean closed this Jan 30, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants