Two‐invariant modular implicit plasticity solver framework for geomechanical simulators
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract A modular, computationally efficient integration framework for two‐invariant‐based elastoplastic constitutive models is proposed. It is designed to allow a range of constitutive models to be incorporated with minimal programming effort. The development is intended for efficient numerical schemes in large‐scale geomechanical simulations. The modular format consists of four components: isotropic elastic relation, isotropic yield criterion, two‐invariant smooth flow potential plastic flow rule and isotropic hardening law. Linear and non‐linear bulk elasticity are considered. For the non‐linear case, a numerical assessment of the accuracy of bulk elasticity integration schemes is presented, where pure Euler and semi‐analytical integrators are compared. The deviatoric component of the elastic law considers both the constant shear modulus and constant Poisson's ratio models. The combination of the classic Terzaghi compaction law with different bulk elasticity models may lead to a physical inconsistency, which is removed by a straightforward modification of the hardening law. When used in conjunction with the proposed bulk elasticity models, it results in a family of compaction laws that significantly reshape the normal compaction line – a fact that seems to have been overlooked in the literature. The main contributions concerning the plasticity integrator are: a novel integration scheme that considers the variation of specific volume within each step; and a condensed system comprising two scalar return‐mapping equations. A Modified Cam‐Clay (MCC) model is used in the assessments. A comparison with an existing, well‐known algorithm is also provided and, in spite of its modularity/generality, the proposed scheme is shown to yield significant computational gains.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Drilling and Well Engineering · Hydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis · Rock Mechanics and Modeling
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Petrobras RD&I Center Rio de Janeiro Brazil
Faculty of Science and Engineering Department of Civil Engineering Swansea University Swansea UK
References (38)
Show source-provided references
1. InoueN FontouradSAB RighettoGL et al.Reservoir geomechanics workflow. In:Proceedings of ISRM International Symposium – 8th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium Sapporo Japan.2014.
2. HamidO OmairA GuizadaP.Reservoir geomechanics in carbonates. In:Society of Petroleum Engineers ed. Proceedings of SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Conference Manama Kingdom of Bahrain March 2017.
3. 10.2118/76805-JPT10.2118/76805-JPT ↗
4. 10.2118/88441-PA10.2118/88441-PA ↗
5. 10.1007/s40948-022-00344-y10.1007/s40948-022-00344-y ↗
6. SousaJr.LC SantosESR FerreiraFH.Geomechanical data acquisition and modeling applied to an offshore sandstone petroleum reservoir. In:Proceedings of 44th U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium and 5th U.S.‐Canada Rock Mechanics Symposium.2010.
7. HegazyM LakshmikanthaMR.Geomechanics: a new star in the horizon to change the fortunes in E&P projects. In:Proceedings of SPE Biennial Energy Resources Conference Port of Spain Trinidad 09–11 June 2014.10.2118/169914-MS ↗
8. Simo J · 1998
9. Yu HS · 2006
10. Chen W · 2007
11. 10.1002/978047069462610.1002/9780470694626 ↗
12. 10.1007/978-1-4419-6379-610.1007/978-1-4419-6379-6 ↗
13. RoscoeKH BurlandJB.On the generalized stress‐strain behaviour of ‘wet’ clay. In: Heyman J. Leckie F. A. Engineering Plasticity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;1968:353‐609.
14. Schofield A · 1968
15. Wood D · 1990
16. 10.1016/0266-352X(88)90009-210.1016/0266-352X(88)90009-2 ↗
17. 10.1016/0266-352X(88)90053-510.1016/0266-352X(88)90053-5 ↗
18. 10.1016/0266-352X(88)90054-710.1016/0266-352X(88)90054-7 ↗
19. 10.1016/0020-7683(94)00247-T10.1016/0020-7683(94)00247-T ↗
20. 10.2208/jscej1969.1974.232_5910.2208/jscej1969.1974.232_59 ↗
21. 10.1680/geot.2008.58.2.12510.1680/geot.2008.58.2.125 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.jsg.2006.02.00210.1016/j.jsg.2006.02.002 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2016.03.03110.1016/j.marpetgeo.2016.03.031 ↗
24. Hoek E · 1980
25. 10.1061/JMCEA3.000142710.1061/JMCEA3.0001427 ↗
26. 10.1061/AJGEB6.000029310.1061/AJGEB6.0000293 ↗
27. SettariA WaltersDA.Advances in coupled geomechanical and reservoir modeling with applications to reservoir compaction. InProceedings of the SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium March 2001.10.2118/74142-PA ↗
28. GutierrezM HickmanR.Constitutive modeling of chalk time‐dependent behavior and chalk–water interaction. In:Second Japan‐U.S. Workshop on Testing Modeling and Simulation in Geomechanics.2006:269‐284.10.1061/40870(216)19 ↗
29. Wang HF · 2000
30. Coussy O · 2004
31. 10.1007/s00466000016610.1007/s004660000166 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.10360410.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103604 ↗
33. 10.1016/0045-7825(90)90152-C10.1016/0045-7825(90)90152-C ↗
34. 10.1016/0045-7825(91)90256-610.1016/0045-7825(91)90256-6 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.cma.2019.11269510.1016/j.cma.2019.112695 ↗
36. 10.1016/S0045-7825(97)00141-210.1016/S0045-7825(97)00141-2 ↗
37. Quantifying Behavioral differences between C and C++ programs
38. Eigen C++ template library for linear algebra. Accessed February 23 2022[Online].