TY - JOUR
T1 - Benchmark study of simulators for thermo-hydraulic modelling of low enthalpy geothermal processes
AU - Mindel, Julian E.
AU - Alt-Epping, Peter
AU - Landes, Antoine Armandine Les
AU - Beernink, Stijn
AU - Birdsell, Daniel T.
AU - Bloemendal, Martin
AU - Hamm, Virginie
AU - Lopez, Simon
AU - Maragna, Charles
AU - Nielsen, Carsten M.
AU - Olivella, Sebastia
AU - Perreaux, Marc
AU - Saaltink, Maarten W.
AU - Saar, Martin O.
AU - van den Heuvel, Daniela
AU - Vidal, Rubén
AU - Driesner, Thomas
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021
PY - 2021/11
Y1 - 2021/11
N2 - In order to assess the thermo-hydraulic modelling capabilities of various geothermal simulators, a comparative test suite was created, consisting of a set of cases designed with conditions relevant to the low-enthalpy range of geothermal operations within the European HEATSTORE research project. In an effort to increase confidence in the usage of each simulator, the suite was used as a benchmark by a set of 10 simulators of diverse origin, formulation, and licensing characteristics: COMSOL, MARTHE, ComPASS, Nexus-CSMP++, MOOSE, SEAWATv4, CODE_BRIGHT, Tough3, PFLOTRAN, and Eclipse 100. The synthetic test cases (TCs) consist of a transient pressure test verification (TC1), a well-test comparison (TC2), a thermal transport experiment validation (TC3), and a convection onset comparison (TC4), chosen to represent well-defined subsets of the coupled physical processes acting in subsurface geothermal operations. The results from the four test cases were compared among the participants, to known analytical solutions, and to experimental measurements where applicable, to establish them as reference expectations for future studies. A basic description, problem specification, and corresponding results are presented and discussed. Most participating simulators were able to perform most tests reliably at a level of accuracy that is considered sufficient for application to modelling tasks in real geothermal projects. Significant relative deviations from the reference solutions occurred where strong, sudden (e.g. initial) gradients affected the accuracy of the numerical discretization, but also due to sub-optimal model setup caused by simulator limitations (e.g. providing an equation of state for water properties).
AB - In order to assess the thermo-hydraulic modelling capabilities of various geothermal simulators, a comparative test suite was created, consisting of a set of cases designed with conditions relevant to the low-enthalpy range of geothermal operations within the European HEATSTORE research project. In an effort to increase confidence in the usage of each simulator, the suite was used as a benchmark by a set of 10 simulators of diverse origin, formulation, and licensing characteristics: COMSOL, MARTHE, ComPASS, Nexus-CSMP++, MOOSE, SEAWATv4, CODE_BRIGHT, Tough3, PFLOTRAN, and Eclipse 100. The synthetic test cases (TCs) consist of a transient pressure test verification (TC1), a well-test comparison (TC2), a thermal transport experiment validation (TC3), and a convection onset comparison (TC4), chosen to represent well-defined subsets of the coupled physical processes acting in subsurface geothermal operations. The results from the four test cases were compared among the participants, to known analytical solutions, and to experimental measurements where applicable, to establish them as reference expectations for future studies. A basic description, problem specification, and corresponding results are presented and discussed. Most participating simulators were able to perform most tests reliably at a level of accuracy that is considered sufficient for application to modelling tasks in real geothermal projects. Significant relative deviations from the reference solutions occurred where strong, sudden (e.g. initial) gradients affected the accuracy of the numerical discretization, but also due to sub-optimal model setup caused by simulator limitations (e.g. providing an equation of state for water properties).
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85110092176&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.geothermics.2021.102130
DO - 10.1016/j.geothermics.2021.102130
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85110092176
SN - 0375-6505
VL - 96
JO - Geothermics
JF - Geothermics
M1 - 102130
ER -