INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL AND ANALYTICAL METHODS IN GEOMECHANICS, VOL.

I, 75-86 (1983)

FINITE ELEMENT METHODS FOR GEOTHERMAL

RESERVOIR SIMULATION
GEORGE ZYVOLOSKI
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, U.S.A.

SUMMARY
Two finite element algorithms suitable for long term simulation of geothermal reservoirs are presented.
Both methods use a diagonal mass matrix and a Newton iteration scheme. The first scheme solves the
2N unsymmetric algebraic equations resulting from the finite element discretization of the equations
governing the flow of heat and mass in porous media by using a banded equation solver. The second
method, suitable for problems in which the transmissibilityterms are small compared to the accumulation
terms, reduces the set of N equations for the Newton corrections to a symmetric system. Comparison
with finite difference schemes indicates that the proposed algorithms are competitive with existing
methods.

INTRODUCTION
In recent years the interest in geothermal energy has grown enormously. Parallel with this
growth has been the need accurately to model geothermal reservoirs. Garg et aLY1Pritchett
et af.,' Faust and M e r ~ e rThomas
,~ and P i e r ~ o nCoats'
,~ and Zyvoloski et aLY6have presented
finite difference based simulations which are capable of modelling one- and two-phase geother-
mal reservoirs. Pruess et af.' have developed an integrated finite difference based code capable
of simulating one- or two-phase flow. Most finite element schemes have been limited to
compressed liquid geothermal reservoirs because of difficulties involved in modelling phase
changes and two-phase flow. Mercer et a1.' discuss some of these difficulties.
It is the purpose of this paper to present some finite element schemes which are competitive
with finite difference schemes while preserving the inherent flexibility of the finite element
method.

MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
Detailed derivations of the governing equations for two-phase geothermal reservoirs have
been presented by several investigators (Mercer et aLY8Mercer and Faust' and Brownell et
af." for example) and therefore only a brief development will be presented here.
Conservation of mass is expressed by the equation
aAm
-+at v * fm +qm= 0

where the mass per unit volume A, is given by

0363-9061/83/010075-12$01.20 Received 6 February 1981

@ U.S. Government Revised 17 July 1981
76 G. ZYVOLOSKI

and the mass flux f m is given by

fm = pv Vv + PIVI (3)
Here q5 is the porosity of the matrix, S, and S1are saturations, pv and p1are densities, V, and
Vl are flow rates per unit volume with the subscripts v and 1 indicating quantities for the
vapour phase or liquid phase, respectively. Source or sinks (that is, bores or re-injection wells)
are represented by the term qm.
Conservation of energy is expressed by the equation
aAe
-+v
at
*fe+qe=O (4)

where the energy per unit volume A, is given by

Ae = (1 - 4 > P r u r + 4 ( S v ~ v u v +S I P ~ U ~ ) (5)
and the energy flux fe is given by
fe = pvhvVv+plh~
VI-KVT (6)
Here the subscript r refers to the rock matrix, ur, u, and uI are specific internal energies, h,
and hl are specific enthalpies, K is an effective thermal conductivity, T is the temperature
and qe is the energy contributed from sources and sinks.
To complete the governing equations it is assumed that Darcy’s Law applies to the movement
of each phase and the capillary pressure is r~egligible:~

kR I
v1= -- (Vp -p1g)
PI

Here k is the permeability, R , and R1are the relative permeabilities, m, and pIare viscosities,
p is the pressure and g represents the acceleration due to gravity. (For simplicity, the equations
are shown for an isotropic medium, though this restriction does not exist in the computer
code.) The relative permeabilities used here are a version of a form suggested by Corey’’ and
adopted by Faust and M e r ~ e r . ~
R , = (1- STz)(l-Sf)’
RI = Sf”
where Sf = (Sl--Slr--Svr)/(l -Sir-Svr) and Slr,S,, are the residual saturations at which the
liquid phases respectively become immobile. Values of S1,= 0.3 and S,, = 0.05 have been used
by other authors and are used in this work.
Using Darcy’s Law the basic conservation equations (1) and (4) can be rewritten

and
 GEOTHERMAL RESERVOIR SIMULATION 77

Here the transmissibilitiesD, and D,are given by

D m = D m 1 +D m v
and

The functional dependence of the thermodynamic and transport quantities i.n equations (1 1)
and (12) on p and h is not given here. The formulae given by Mercer and Faust' were used
and the reader can refer to that paper for details.
The mixture enthalpy h is related to the other variables by the formula

The source and sink terms in equations (1) and (4) arise from bores, and assuming that the
total mass withdrawal q, for each bore is specified, then the energy withdrawal qe is determined
as follows:
qe = qvhv +qIhl (17)
where qv= aq,, ql = (1 -a)qm and
(+ =1 /( +
1 L
PIRIP )
PvRvW1
The form of equation (18) shows the importance of the ratio of relative permeabilities RI/Rv
in controlling the discharge composition. The limited field data available (see GrantI2) show
that there may be significant differences between the relative permeability formulae used here
in equations (4) and (10) (and by other authors) and field relative permeabilities.

FORMULATION OF FINITE ELEMENT EQUATIONS

The finite element equations are generated using the Galerkin formulations. For a detailed
presentation of the finite element method the reader is referred to Zienkie~icz.'~ In this
method the flow domain, s1, is assumed divided into finite elements and the variables P and
h, along with the accumulation terms A, and A, are interpolated on each element

These approximations are introduced in equations (1) and (4) and the Galerkin formulation
(described by Zienkiewicz and Parekh14)is applied. The following equations are derived
78 G. ZYVOLOSKI

where

Equations (21) and (22) need some comment. D ’: and D p indicate an upstream weighted
transmissibility (after Dalen”). This technique has worked well in the low order elements
(3-node triangle, 4-node quadrilateral) where the schemes resemble difference techniques.
Research is ongoing to determine the applicability of using upstream weighted transmissibilities
when using 8-node quadratic elements. The upstream weighting is determined by comparing
the velocities at the nodes i and j. The matrix [C] is diagonalized by choosing integration
points at the element vertices. This also corresponds to a finite difference approach. As Dalen15
points out, more general finite difference techniques may be formulated, but only at the
expense of considerable sophistication. The finite element technique generates high order and
irregular meshes routinely. In the usual finite element practice the matrices [TI and [C] are
built by an assembly of corresponding element matrices. In the computer code corresponding
to the development outlined above, the equations are developed by node. This allows for easy
determination of the upstream node. It further makes for easy implementation of solution
algorithms that were developed for finite difference schemes.

SOLUTION ALGORITHMS
I. In this algorithm the full Newton-Raphson method is implemented. The system of finite
element equations may be written as:

:+1 K

=-

The method solves this unsymmetric band system of equations using the SGBFA subroutine
package of the LINPACK library developed at the Argonne National Laboratory.
 GEOTHERMAL RESERVOIR SIMULATION 79

11. This algorithm is an extension of the one presented by Zyvoloski et aL6 The equations
solved at each iteration can be represented in block form as follows:

Here matrices such as [aF,/ap] contain the derivatives of Fmi,with respect to all the variables
Pii.However, the contribution to the Jacobian matrix from the conduction terms is neglected
and therefore the effect on the solution process of inclusion of the conduction terms merely
corresponds to additional terms added to the energy source term 4e.
To obtain a computationally efficient scheme for solution the derivatives of the trans-
missibilities with respect to pressure and enthalpy are neglected. With this important
modification the matrices [aF,/ah] and [aFe/ah]become diagonal while [aFm/ap]and [aFe/ap]
are tridiagonal. This simplification means that the equations for the correction {ah) and {ap}
can be separated, giving the equation

and

As a consequence of the diagonal nature of [8F,/ah] and [aFJah], equation (27) represents
a symmetric banded system of equations which is solved using an active column profile solver.
Once {Ap}is known {Ah} is obtained by direct evaluation using equation (26). Although there
is an approximation made in the solution process by neglecting the derivatives of the trans-
missibilities with respect to p and h it is important to note that this involves no approximation
in the final solution of equation (25). The coefficient matrix and the right-hand side of equation
(25) are updated at each iteration using the latest information to calculate transmissibilities
and other quantities.
There is some additional flexibility in the above algorithms. The programs are set up such
that the algorithms presented above may be applied line-by-line or block-by-block. These
variants are not discussed here. They are the subject of ongoing research and results based
on these algorithms will be presented at a later date.

EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS
The first example is a model of a two-phase highly permeable geothermal reservoir originally
proposed by Toronyi and Farouq Ali16 and solved by a number of authors (Mercer and Faust,’
Thomas and Pierson4). The model reservoir is shown in Figure 1.The input for the problem
is presented in Table 1. As with Thomas and Pierson, time steps of 10 days with an initial
time step of 8.3 days were used. The final state corresponds to 19 percent of the original
water mass removed. Figure 1shows the results obtained in this study using quadrilateral and
triangular elements and compared with the results obtained by Thomas and P i e r ~ o nThe .~
trangular grid was obtained by bisecting the quadrilateral elements in the top left direction.
These results were obtained with algorithm 1 as described in the previous section. Good
80 G.ZYVOLOSKI

(ON ( 1828,O)
r I I I I I I I
,183.182 ,173.173 .15 .152 ,119 120 ,148.149 ,164.164

,183.182 ,173,173 ,152.153 .119,119 ,148,149 ,164.1 63

,183 ,173 ,152 .119 ,148 ,161
,183,182 ,173,173 ,152,153 1 17 ,116 ,148,150 .164,163
.183 .173 .152 .118 .148 .161
,183,182 ,173,173 ,152,153 ,119,120 ,148,149 ,164 . I 6 3
.183 ,173 .152 .120 ,148 ,161
,183.I82 ,173,173 ,152,152 ,120.122 ,149.148 ,164,164
,183 ,173 ,152 .121 ,148 ,161
,183.182 ,173.173 ,152.152 ,121.123 .149.148 ,164.164
,183 ,173 ,152 ,122 ,148 ,161
1 I I 1 I I I I
(0,182.8) ( 1828,182.8)
ReF81InJADRIUTERAL
I TRIANGLE
Figure 1. Comparison of results of Toronyi's problem

agreement is evident. This is somewhat surprising considering the elements have an aspect
ratio of 10. The same problem run with algorithm 2 and smaller time steps was necessary to
complete the simulation. However, run times were comparable. A discussion of computer
costs and run times is presented with the second example.
The second example problem considered is a model of a geothermal field which has recharge
occurring across a constant pressure and enthalpy boundary. The model reservoir is depicted
in Figure 2. The input data are presented in Table 11. This problem was proposed recently as
a Department of Energy geothermal code test pr0b1em.l~The simulation is for 10years.
Because of the relatively long simulation time and the stability afforded by the recharge
(constant pressure) conditions, a variable time stepping algorithm was employed in this
example. The logic is as follows. After each time step the number of iterations was compared
to some fixed value, in this case eight, and if the iterations were less than this amount then
the next time step was made a multiple (1.2 in this example), of the last time step. This scheme
had an advantage of limiting time step increases when the solution was changing quickly, such
as phase changes. Further logic was also employed to decrease the time step increment if the
iterations exceeded 25 cycles. In this example the FE (finite element) quadrilaterals took 41
time steps to model the 10-year production, while the FD (finite difference) scheme took 49
time steps. Computer times were 47.4 and 51.3 cpu sec respectively. To get an idea of the
temporal truncation error, a more accurate 284-step simulation was also performed. The

Table I. Parameters for Toronyi example

Parameter Symbol Value

Permeability 9.869 x m2
Thermal conductivity 1.730 w/(m "C)
Porosity 0.05
Rock density 2563 kg/m3
Rock specific heat 1010 J/kg"C
Aquifer length 1828 m
Aquifer width 1828 m
Initial water saturation 0.2
Initial pressure 44.816 bar
Discharge 0.082021 kg/(sec m)
 GEOTHERMAL RESERVOIR SIMULATION 81

(300)
CONSTANT PRESSURE
AND ENTHALPY
p =36 bar
PRODUCTION h = ,676 MUKg

(62.5.62.5)

E
OBSERVATION
WELL
(162.5,137.5)
0

Figure 2. Solution domain for DOE test problem

pressure and temperature of the production and observation wells, as well as the outlet enthalpy
are presented in Figures 3-5. As can be seen from the figures, the FD and FE schemes plot
very close to each other while the FE scheme is closer to the presumably more accurate
solution. It is interesting to note here that the accurate solution was run with algorithm 2
using the approximate Jacobian. Even though many more time steps were used the cpu time
was only 114 sec. It is also important to note that the truncation error was felt most strongly
in the output temperatures and flowing enthalpies, the quantities which are of most interest
in power plant sizing.
The third example is a model of a fractured geothermal reservoir similar to that being
studied at Los Alamos National Laboratory. It further represents a problem which is very
tractable with finite difference methods. The model reservoir is presented in Figure 6. A
graded mesh was used with elements varying in width from 0.002 m near the fracture face to
10 m at the boundary opposite the fracture; the lengths of the elements varied from 25 m to

Table 11. Parameters for DOE test problem

Parameter Symbol Value

Permeability k 2.5 x 10-14mZ

Thermal conductivity K 1w/(m "C)
Porosity 4 0.35
Rock density Pr 2563 kg/m3
Rock specific heat C, 1010J/kg "C
Aquifer length - 300 m
Aquifer width - 200 m
Initial pressure P; 36 bar
Initial temperature distribution:

T ( x y, 1
[240"C

, 0) = 240- 160
rs100

(-
1-100
2oo )'+go(=)

(160°C r 2 3 0 0
r-100
"C 1 0 0 < r < 3 0 0 m

where r is the distance from the origin

Discharge qm 0.05 kg/(sec m)
 82 G. ZYVOLOSKI

40r I 1 I I I I I I I I
38 - -
36 - -
.............
OBSERVATION WELL -
-
......................................... ...................-
p

PRODUCTION WELL
28 - -
26 - -
24 - -
22 - -
20 I I I I 1 I 1 I I
0 365 730 1095 1460 1825 2190 2555 2920 3285 3650

Figure 3. Pressure histories for DOE test problem

100m. This leads to a very unfavourable aspect ratio (5000) for the 4-node element; the
standard finite element solution failed to finish the problem. If the integration points were
changed from the standard 2-by-2 Gauss type to integration points which were equally weighted
at the 4 nodes, the standard 5-point difference formula resulted. With this change the 10-year
simulation was run in 28 time steps and a CPU time of 71 sec. As before, a logic based on
the iteration count was used to increase the time step size. In this case if the iterations were

6 1 500
1 365 730 1095 1460 1825 2190 2555 2920 3285 3650

DAYS
FD (284 TIME STEPS) ............... FD (49 TIME STEPS)
-. - .- .. FE (41 TIME STEPS)

Figure 4. Temperature histories for DOE test problem

 GEOTHERMAL RESERVOIR SIMULATION 83
1 .201 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I
I

“4
1.10

::::Il
0.70
0 365
I
730
I
1095 1460
,
1825
DAYS
I
2190
I
2555
,
2920 3285 3650

FD (284 TIME STEPS) FD (49 TIME STEPS)

.-.-..---..--.
FE (41 TIME STEPS)
Figure 5. Outlet enthalpy for DOE test problem

less than 8, the time step was multiplied by 1-414. The temperature results are presented in
Figure 7. Also shown in Figure 7 are the results of a more accurate 87-time-step solution
(157 sec cpu time). Considerable temporal truncation error is evident. It is interesting to note
that a plot of outlet temperature vs. time (not given) would show identical drawdown curves.
Algorithm 2 also performed poorly on this problem. The time steps were constrained with

(10 0)

GRAVITY

PRODUCTION WELL
1

INJECTION WELL

,2000)
Figure 6. Solution domain for fracture flow problem
84 G . ZYVOLOSKI

-28 TIME STEPS

......... 87 TIME STEPS
, 180

2600-

190

? I
L x 340010 I
20
I
40
1
60
I
80 1 0

Figure 7. Temperature field for fracture flow problem

this algorithm to lop4days for the first 50 time steps in which it used a comparable amount
of time as algorithm 1used to finish the problem.

DISCUSSION
The three examples presented above illustrate some of the strengths and weaknesses of the
finite element representation of flow in porous media. The finite element method performed
slightly better than the finite difference method for the DOE test problem (example 2). The
third example demonstrated the well-known result that the aspect ratio for elements must be
kept about the same order of magnitude for good results. The code performed well on this

Table 111. Parameters for fracture flow example

Parameter Symbol Value

Permeability k m2 matrix
m2 fracture
Thermal conductivity K 2.9 W/(m "C)
Porosity 4 0.001 matrix fracture
Rock density 2700 kg/m3
Rock specific heat 1000 J/kg "C
Aquifer depth 1000 (2400 m-3400 m)
Aquifer width 100 m
Fracture length 300 m
Fracture width 0.002 m
Initial pressure hydrostatic
Initial temperature 40.0+ 0.055 (depth)
Discharge production 0.05 kg/(sec m)
injection 0.05 kg/(sec m) at 118°C
 GEOTHERMAL RESERVOIR SIMULATION 85

problem using an integration scheme which resulted in the 5-point difference scheme. This
implementation is not restricted to rectangular grids like the difference formulae, and thus is
more general. How it performs in different grid orientations is worth investigating, as well as
an experimental investigation of the spatial discretization error.
Two other important points arise in the discussion of the examples. This is the temporal
truncation error and the performance of algorithm 2, the approximate Jacobian algorithm.
These two subjects are somewhat related. It is evident from the temperature history plot of
example 2 and the temperature contour plot of example 3 that considerable truncation error
occurs in large time step runs. Algorithm 2 usually takes about 4-8 times the time steps using
automatic time stepping, at 2-3 times the cost of algorithm 1. Thus in many problems it may
prove to be very useful in obtaining an accurate solution. It did prove very efficient in well
tests in two-phase conditions in conjunction with finite difference methods.18

CONCLUSIONS
A finite element method for two-phase flow in porous media has been presented which is
competitive with finite difference methods in terms of computational efficiency while still
possessing geometric flexibilities.Two solution algorithms, one using the full Newton-Raphson
iteration and the other employing an approximate Jacobian, have been presented and are
useful in solving long-term reservoir problems. Algorithm 1, using the full Jacobian, allowed
very large time steps with associated temporal truncation error. Algorithm 2 was found to be
limited in time step size. Despite this drawback, this algorithm proved to be an efficient
alternative to algorithm 1 in some problems.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author is grateful to Dr. M. J. O’Sullivan and Gloria Bennett for reading the manuscript
and providing many helpful comments. Financial support for this work was provided by the
U.S. Department of Energy.

REFERENCES
1. S . K. Garg, J. W. Pritchett and D. H. Brownell, Jr., ‘Transport of mass and energy in porous media’, Roc. Seeond
United Nations Symp. Development and Use of Geothermal Resources, San Francisco (1975).
2. J. W. Pritchett, S. K. Garg, D. H. Brownell, Jr. and H. B. Levine, ‘Geohydrological environmental effects of
geothermal power production-phase 1’, Report No. SSS-R-75-2733, Systems, Science and Software, La Jolla,
California (1975).
3. C. R. Faust and J. W. Mercer, ‘Mathematical modeling of geothermal systems’, Proc. Second United Nations
Symp. Development and Use of Geothermal Resources, San Francisco (1975).
4. L. K. Thomas and R. G. Pierson, ‘Three dimensional reservoir simulation’, SOC.Pet. Eng. J., 18,151-161 (1978).
5. K. H. Coats, ‘Geothermal reservoir modelling’, paper SPE 6892, 52nd Annual Fall Meeting of the SOC.Pet. Eng.
of AZME, Denver, Colorado (1977).
6. G. A. Zyvoloski, M. J. OSullivan and D. E. Krol, ‘Finite difference techniques for modelling geothermal
reservoirs’, Znt. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 3, 355-366 (1979).
7. K. Pruess, R. C. Schroeaar, P. A. Witherspoon and J. M. Zerzan, ‘SHAFT78,two-phase multidimensional
computer program for geothermal reservoir simulation’,Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report No. 8264, Novem-
ber (1979).
8. J. W. Mercer, Jr., C. R. Faust and G. F. Pinder, ‘Geothermal reservoir simulation’, ‘Proc. Conf. Research for the
Development of Geothermal Energy Resources, Pasadena, California (1974).
9. J. W. Mercer and C. R. Faust, ‘Simulation of water- and vapor-dominated hydrothermal reservoirs’, Paper SPE
5520, 50th Annual Fall Meeting of the SOC.Pet. Eng. of AZME, Dallas, Texas (1975).
10. D. H.Brownell, Jr., S . K. Garg and J. W. Pritchett, ‘Computer simulation of geothermal reservoirs’, Paper SPE
5381,45th California Regional Meeting of the SOC.Pet. Eng. of AZME, Ventura (1975).
86 G . ZYVOLOSKI

11. A. T. Corey, ‘The interrelation between gas and oil relative permeabilities’,ProducersMonthly, 19,38-41 (1954)
12. M.A. Grant, ‘Permeability reduction factors at Wairakei’, Paper 77-HT-52,AIChE-AIME Heat TransferConf.,
Salt Lake City, Utah (1977).
13. 0.C.Zienkiewicz. T h e Finite Element Method. McGraw-Hill, London, 1977.
14. 0.C. Zienkiewicz and C. J. Parekh, ‘Transient field problems-two and three dimensional analysis by
isoparametric finite elements’, Int. J. Num.Meth. Eng., 2, 61-70 (1973).
15. V. Dalen, ‘Simplified finite-element models for reservoir flow problems’, SOC.Pet. Eng. J., 19,333-343 (1979).
16. R. M.Toronyi and S. M. Farouq Ali, ‘Two-phase, two-dimensional simulation of a geothermal reservoir and
wellbore system’, SOC.Pet. Eng. J., 17,171-183 (1977).
17. M. W. Molloy, ‘Geothermal reservoir engineering code comparison project’, Sixth Workshop on Geothermal
Reseruoir Engineering,Stanford University (1980).
18. G . Zyvoloski and M. J. O’Sullivan, ‘Simulation of a gas-dominated geothermal reservoir’, Soc. Per. Eng. I., 20,
52-58 (1980).