Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Detailed Answer
Quick Answer
Concise responses based on abstracts only
Detailed Answer
Well-researched responses based on abstracts and relevant paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 34 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 49 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 27 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 30 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 80 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 198 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 461 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4 38 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Enriched Galerkin Discretization for Modeling Poroelasticity and Permeability Alteration in Heterogeneous Porous Media (2010.06653v1)

Published 13 Oct 2020 in cs.CE

Abstract: Accurate simulation of the coupled fluid flow and solid deformation in porous media is challenging, especially when the media permeability and storativity are heterogeneous. We apply the enriched Galerkin (EG) finite element method for the Biot's system. Block structure used to compose the enriched space and linearization and iterative schemes employed to solve the coupled media permeability alteration are illustrated. The open-source platform used to build the block structure is presented and illustrate that it helps the enriched Galerkin method easily adaptable to any existing discontinuous Galerkin codes. Subsequently, we compare the EG method with the classic continuous Galerkin (CG) and discontinuous Galerkin (DG) finite element methods. While these methods provide similar approximations for the pressure solution of Terzaghi's one-dimensional consolidation, the CG method produces spurious oscillations in fluid pressure and volumetric strain solutions at material interfaces that have permeability contrast and does not conserve mass locally. As a result, the flux approximation of the CG method is significantly different from the one of EG and DG methods, especially for the soft materials. The difference of flux approximation between EG and DG methods is insignificant; still, the EG method demands approximately two and three times fewer degrees of freedom than the DG method for two- and three-dimensional geometries, respectively. Lastly, we illustrate that the EG method produces accurate results even for much coarser meshes.

Citations (15)
List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Follow-Up Questions

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.