SPE 65159
Linking reservoir and surface simulators: how to improve the coupled solutions
C. C. Barroux, Institut Francais du Petrole, P. Duchet-Suchaux, TotalFinaElf S.A., P. Samier, TotalFinaElf S.A., R. Nabil,
Gaz de France
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE European Petroleum Conference held in
Paris, France, 24–25 October 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
A full analysis of the problem of coupling two independent
industrial simulators, a reservoir simulator and a steady-state
network simulator, has been performed. A classification of the
industrial needs has been obtained from the examination of
several actual cases studies (fields at development, or
production stage, requiring performance optimization through
short to long term forecasts). Several coupling configurations
and specific requirements, for both reservoir and surface
software, have been identified to satisfy the industrial needs.
Various commercial solutions have been screened to evaluate
the adequacy between the software functional capacities and
the identified configurations and requirements. Limitations
have been brought to evidence.
The paper, issued from the work of a multidisciplinary
team, presents the details of each step described briefly here
above. Practical solutions for improving coupled solutions, i.e.
to go beyond the identified limitations and to reduce the
elapsed times of the coupled simulations, are provided. An
improved mutual understanding of the needs of each discipline
concerned by the integration of reservoir and surface has been
experienced as essential for a successful integrated approach
of field optimization. It is intended in the paper to contribute
to a better communication between the various upstream
petroleum skills: reservoir, production, surface and process
engineers.
Introduction
It has been well recognized that coupling surface network and
reservoir simulations is a critical technology for field
development/optimization studies, particularly in the deep
offshore area, or when many wells share the same surface
network. Various methods have been proposed to solve in a
coupled way the reservoir model and the surface model, for
enabling time savings (by avoiding multiple information
returns between reservoir and surface engineers), and for an
improved reliability of the global solution.
Since the pioneer work of Dempsey1 in 1971, the
development of a coupled resolution of reservoir and surface
models, firstly for application in gas field development and
production optimization, has been extended some years after
by Chevron for oil field developments2-4 in offshore area.
Since then, several other major companies have developed
their proprietary integrated reservoir/surface solution5-8, and/or
have integrated their proprietary reservoir simulator with a
commercial network software9,10. To our knowledge, the only
reported experience of a compositional integration is from
Litvak11-13. In these integrated solutions, the two programs are
merged in a unique one (solution named ‘fully integrated
solution’ in what follows) ; such a procedure has also been
used by Trick14 for integrating two commercial software
Forgas and Imex.
Another integration method, enabled by the emergence of
message passing libraries as PVM (Parallel Virtual Machine),
is to couple independent programs through an interface. In the
coupling development of two commercial simulators, Eclipse
as reservoir simulator, with Netopt (Hepguler15) or with
Forgas (Trick16), the interface which controls the software
communication has been implemented in the surface
simulator, the reservoir simulator being a slave process. The
coupling location, retained for linking two independent
simulators, is either at the bottom hole (Trick), or at the
reservoir level with an Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR)
represented in both reservoir and surface models (Hepguler).
Apart from the integration procedure and the coupling
location (surface, bottom hole or reservoir level), the
published solutions differ from each other in particular about
the nature (explicit or implicit) of the algorithm, the
equilibration frequency (the frequency for calling the surface
network resolution), the type of fixed boundary conditions
exchanged between the programs. For all these solutions, a
strong concern is minimizing the computation times. For the
Eclipse/Forgas link, significant savings in computation time (a
factor of 30) have been achieved using a coupling at the
Newton iteration level compared to a coupling at the time step
level as used by Hepguler. For fully integrated solutions, more
2 C.C. BARROUX, P. DUCHET-SUCHAUX, P. SAMIER, R. NABIL SPE 65159

fundamental techniques for accelerating implicit resolution
methods have also been proposed, among which one finds
domain overlapping17, domain decomposition18, and solution
preconditioning19.
Up-to-now, a full integration appears to be still often
preferred to a coupling through an interface software.
However, the coupling through an interface could offer more
flexibility in software choices when coupling two independent
simulators, commercially available or not, provided that each
simulator has to be "opened", i.e. it can exchange data with an
external software during the simulation. Crossing the
information got from the literature, and from the screening of
various software, have allowed for getting a better
understanding of this situation and for providing tracks on
potential ways for improving the interfaced solutions.
Industrial needs from examination of various cases
Two case studies presented hereafter are used to discuss
particular results obtained with various coupled or fully
integrated solutions. Two other case studies are described to
focus the attention on needs not yet well satisfied by
commercial solutions. They allow also for illustrating some
contexts where a reservoir/surface integrated approach is
needed. Since the objective is not to promote any software,
and also because of the rapid software evolution, possibly
invalidating in a next future any to-day ranking of software
quality, it has been preferred to avoid any mention of a trade
mark.
Case 1
The aim of the study is to explore the possibilities of
putting into production a high pressure gas reservoir through
an existing surface network gathering the production of
test 3. For test 4, the communication, between the Unix
platform used for the reservoir simulation and the PC platform
used for the surface simulation, has been established via an
Ethernet network and PVM.
The test production results, not shown here, are quite
similar. Two observations can be made: 1) coupling two
independent simulators through an interface does not result
necessarily in a worse CPU time than that obtained with a
fully integrated solution, 2) communication between different
platforms through a computer network is a factor for
increasing elapsed simulation times. It is worth mentioning
that, if here the time spent in the surface simulation is
relatively small compared to the time spent in the reservoir
simulation, it is because of the case simplicity (a few wells, a
simple surface network, an essentially single phase flow,
Black-Oil modeling).
Case 2
To optimize the plan of development of a deep offshore oil
field with gas lift, simulations have been performed using the
coupling of two independent software through an interface.
Thirteen wells are producing through a rather complex
network including seven trunk lines. One of the simulation
cases has been used to test two frequencies of equilibration
between the reservoir simulator and the network simulator: at
each reservoir simulation time step, at each month. Figure 1
shows that the run time (as a function of the simulated time) is,
for an equilibration at each time step, about 50% higher than
for an equilibration at each month.
Fig. 1 – Influence of equilibration frequency on computing time
Computing Time (hours)

16
several gas reservoirs already largely produced and depleted. End of the
Date of compression, compression sizing together with 12 production
optimized production scenario are expected from the study. plateau
From a coupling point of view, the case is rather simple since 8
only a few number of wells (coupling points) are involved, and Reservoir
since the flow is essentially single phase flow. Specific simulation
4
requirements for the surface network simulator are an alone
optimization functionality and an option to represent some of 0
the reservoirs as tank models. Table 1 gives the running 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
computation times (RT) of four tests with different coupled Sim ulated Tim e (Days x 10**3)
and fully integrated software, normalized with respect to a Equilibration frequency : Time Step Month
reference running time. The reference running time (RTref) is
the time obtained for the reservoir simulation alone (without Fig. 2 – Influence of equilibration frequency on simulation results
any coupling to a network simulator), run on a Unix platform.
Qo
Table 1: test simulation conditions
Production Rate

Test Nature of RT/RTref Simulation Platform

# coupling Reservoir Surface
1 Fully integrated 1.1 Unix Unix
2 Fully integrated 1.7 Unix Unix Qw
3 Through interface 1.2 Unix Unix
4 Through interface 2.5 Unix PC
0
For tests 1 to 3, the reservoir simulation and the surface
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
simulation have been processed on a unique Unix platform,
the same as that used for the reservoir simulation alone. PVM Simulated Time (Days x 10**3)
has been used for communication between the simulators in Equilibration frequency : Time Step Month
SPE 65159 LINKING RESERVOIR AND SURFACE SIMULATORS: HOW TO IMPROVE THE COUPLED SOLUTIONS
The results show also that the simulation is faster in the
production plateau period than in the decline period, the time
savings appearing larger in the decline period than in the
plateau period. Figure 2 illustrates that the results of oil and
water field production rates obtained during five years of
production with both equilibration frequencies are quite
similar, this demonstrating that a coupling at each time step is
not optimal in this case.
Both reservoir and surface models are Black-Oil (BO). The
run time, even with the reduced equilibration frequency, is
much larger (about ten times) than the time needed by the
reservoir simulation alone. For a coupled compositional
simulation, potentially requested in case of limiting
composition specifications and/or for providing compositions
to surface process simulations, computation time should have
been even larger. In fact, we have found no commercial
solution for compositional coupling of two independent
software. To our knowledge, the only reported compositional
experience is from Litvak12 and it seems to correspond to a
fully integrated solution. Besides, although it could have been
of interest to model the gas re-injection network for gas lift, no
commercial solution allowing for a simultaneous resolution of
production and injection networks has yet been found.
Case 3
A gas field, composed of hundreds of non communicating
traps, is at the development stage. Most of the eighty strings
are planned to produce several traps in commingle. Trap
depths range between 2000 and 4000 m, varying fluid
compositional trends having been identified. Interval between
top and bottom perforated traps in a given well can reach 1500
m. Cross-flow between traps produced by a same well is
possible during the exploitation. Because of rapid trap pressure
decline and surface network limitations, a reservoir/surface
integrated approach has been necessary to optimize the
development plan (production plateau, well drilling schedule,
production facilities, ..), and among other tasks, to interpret the
early production stage in terms of pressure and composition in
the individual traps. Production is collected through a rather
simple network. To couple a reservoir model to a network
model at the trap level, a specific requirement for the network
model is that it should be able to manage a situation where
each common boundary point may change from a source status
to a sink status (or vice versa) during the simulation without
any a priori knowledge on the dates at which the changes
occur. Although an in-house software (approach similar to that
described by Puchyr20) exists, we have looked for alternate
solutions from the to-day market. So far, no commercial
solution well suited to the problem size and specificity has
been found.
Case 4
A large oil field (about one thousand wells) has been
produced for more than thirty years by gas injection, water
injection and gas lift. It is planned to double the production in
the next twenty years. Up to now, the reservoir simulations,
and in particular the history matching, have been run
'conventionally', i.e. without an integrated reservoir/surface
approach, but for the further field developments, such an
3
approach has been recognized as essential. A first step
underway is building a model for the actual complex network.
A second step will be to perform coupled reservoir/surface
simulation studies on a few last years of production to verify
the adequacy between the reservoir model and the surface
model in a context of history match. It is wished, for the first
history match simulations, to use a loose coupling, i.e. to
couple explicitly the simulators at the well head level, the
reservoir model passing rates as boundary conditions to the
network model. To keep consistency with the rate control by
the reservoir model, it is also wished that the network
simulator works under the reservoir simulator control. These
options, not developed in the available commercial interfaces,
are discussed in the following sections.
Comments
A common point in the cases briefly presented above is the
very large time scale of the simulations compared to the
typical time scale of transient phenomena occurring in wells,
risers or at the surface level. The transient effects are then not
considered in what follows, although, in the deep offshore area
where wells are complex and in a smaller number than on
shore, it could be envisaged to get more accuracy by coupling
the reservoir simulator to transient well and network
simulators.
For the present discussion, a well (or a branch in the
network) is considered, as usual in the reservoir engineering,
either open to flow or closed, and only steady-state (or pseudo
steady-state) flow has to be modeled in the network simulator.
As a summary of the industrial needs appeared from the
cases presented here above, and to allow the user for choosing
the operating mode, what is required is:
For both simulators:
- Fast resolution ;
- Portability ;
- Extended Black-Oil (in particular with variable gas
gravity and possibility for compositional tracking), and
compositional thermodynamics ;
- Possibility of passing pressure, rates, and compositional
information at well head level, at reservoir level, at
bottom hole level ;
- Controllability from an external process.
For the interface:
- Robustness of the coupling scheme ;
- Optimization functionality (see application examples21,22);
- User defined and/or intelligent equilibration frequency ;
- Allowing for BO or compositional coupling ;
- Option for boundary conditions: rates or pressure.
Specific requirements for the surface simulator, in addition
to single or multiphase flow modeling and IPR handling, are
flow reversibility at coupling location, the ability to represent
oil production together with gas or water re-injection
networks, and a card time functionality for entering the
network modifications during the whole simulated time.
Operating modes
Already introduced in former papers (Breaux4, Puchyr20), the
distinction of two operating modes, ‘history matching’ and
‘prediction’, interesting from a general practical point of view,
4 C.C. BARROUX, P. DUCHET-SUCHAUX, P. SAMIER, R. NABIL SPE 65159

should also be considered when coupling reservoir and Fig. 4 - Configuration 2: coupling at reservoir level with IPR
overlap
surface. Indeed, in a history matching context, one knows
which wells are opened, and well rates can be estimated from Network Model
well production tests or from a rate allocation procedure:
degrees of freedom are less than in a purely predictive context,
where well performance, dates for well opening and shutting
are estimated during the simulation using some production J2 J2
optimization process at the surface level. As, in a predictive
Reservoir Model
context, rates are unknowns, reservoir pressure is an
appropriate (relatively slowly varying) boundary condition for IPR1
the network simulator, and a coupling location at the reservoir J1

level is advantageous ; but, for history matching, especially for

roughcast simulations, coupling at the well head level is more S1 : Reservoir cell
IPR1
practical. It is noticeable that, as reported by Tingas10, two J1 : Bottom Hole
J2 : Well Head
J1

solutions are available in the GCOMP/PIPEPHASE S1 S1

integration: the coupling location can be at the well head or at
the bottom level ; coupling at the well head, although less Fig. 5 - Configuration 3: coupling location at reservoir level with
accurate in wellbore hydraulics calculations than the (well + IPR) overlap
alternative solution, has been found adequate in many cases,
S1 : Reservoir cell
and faster. Although no reason other than the solution fastness J1 : Bottom Hole
is provided to sustain the development of the two solutions, J2 : Well Head
Reservoir
Tingas contribution gives some support to our analysis. model
A last point concerning the incidence of the operating Network model
J2
mode on a coupling through an interface, is that, if it comes
naturally the reservoir simulator to be a slave process for
forecasting (the production logic is optimized at the surface
level), it should be practical, as expressed in case 4 J1 J2
IPR1
description, to reverse the situation for history matching.
Furthermore, as history match is usually followed by forecasts,
IPR1
a switch option between the two operating modes should also S1
J1
be practical. The commercial interfaced solutions offer
S1
potential flexibility in the reservoir simulator choice, but are
less flexible concerning the coupling location, and concerning Fig. 6 - Configuration 4: coupling at trap level with IPR overlap
the control of the surface model from the reservoir simulator
S1, S2 : Trap Network model
or from a third-party interface. J1, J2 : Bottom Hole
Four coupling configurations are discussed in next sections J3 : Well Head
(Figures 3 to 6). The pressure drops in the well tubing are
represented, for configurations 1 and 2, respectively in the J3
J3
reservoir model and in the surface model, while they are
represented in both models in configuration 3. Reservoir model
S2 S2
Fig. 3 - Configuration 1: coupling at the well head level IPR2 IPR2
J2 J2

Network Model

IPR1 IPR1
J1 J1

S1 S1
Reservoir Model

J2
J2 Configuration 3 may then allow for switching from a
coupling at the well head, usable in a history match mode, to a
coupling at the reservoir level, more appropriate in a
S1 : Reservoir cell predictive context. Figure 6 pictures an extension of
J1 : Bottom Hole
J2 : Well Head configuration 2 concept, denominated as configuration 4, for
representing wells producing several individual traps (as
IPR1 required in case 3).
IPR1
J1
J1
These configurations are discussed after a presentation of
S1 software functionality involved in the coupling procedures.
S1
SPE 65159 LINKING RESERVOIR AND SURFACE SIMULATORS: HOW TO IMPROVE THE COUPLED SOLUTIONS
About network simulators
Advanced steady-state network simulators handle single or
multiphase flow, offer a card time functionality, have various
compositional options including fully compositional with
equation of state. They usually accept rate or pressure as
boundary conditions at source and sink nodes. Some of them
are portable.
Other features have to be emphasized in the context of
reservoir/surface integration:
1. The pressures and temperatures in the network are usually
solved in a coupled way;
2. The limitation for the flow direction at the source nodes
(precluding the representation of cross-flow in wells)
comes from a distinction of the boundary nodes, as source
nodes, - where, in addition to a pressure (or rate)
condition, a compositional information and a temperature
have to be fixed -, and sink nodes where only a pressure
or rate condition has to be fixed ;
3. Another limitation concerns separator representation:
usually, only one output of the separator can be connected
to a downstream network (chosen as the oil output for
representing an oil production network) ; it follows that a
separator has not a node status, but is considered as a
device in a link between two nodes, and this precludes the
possibility of simulating gas or water re-injection.
To understand the origin of these limitations, we have
enumerated, for the network problem, the number of
equations, the number of unknowns, the difference
corresponding to the number of boundary conditions necessary
to the problem closure. A simple description is provided in
appendix A. It appears that, in a steady-state network model :
- the fact of forcing a rate or a pressure condition at each
boundary node precludes a description, in the network
model, of all separator downstream branches,
- the fact of forbidding an overwriting of the temperature
and composition conditions at a source node precludes the
modeling of a reverse flow at a source node, then
precludes to represent the cross-flow in wells.
Overcoming these limitations is possible by rewriting
and/or rearranging the system of equations, but may require an
heavy software development.
A more easily tractable point of improvement, which
should allow for diminishing the computation time, concerns
the temperature calculation: as long as the rate variations in
the network are not considerable, it is unnecessary to
recalculate the temperatures. Disconnecting pressure and
temperature calculations, and the use of a smart rate criteria
for network temperature update, should result in appreciable
computation time savings.
About interfaces
Presently available interfaces for linking reservoir and network
simulators are integrated in the network software as an
additional (possibly optional) module. An optimization
functionality is usually provided in the interface package.
Portability and user-defined equilibration frequency were not
met so far in a same commercial software.
5
The procedures used for coupling independent
simulators15,16 are limited to a Black-Oil fluid representation.
Extension of coupling to other thermodynamic contexts is
discussed in a separate section.
In the coupling algorithm described by Trick16, the surface
simulator uses the flow rates computed by the reservoir
simulator to compute the pressures throughout the surface
network and the well bottom hole pressures at a predefined
datum depth (BHP). The BHP computed values are passed to
the reservoir simulator which uses them to revise the flow
rates during the next Newton iteration. The convergence is
obtained when the difference between flow rates from one
iteration to the other is less than a user defined tolerance. To
speed the convergence, the surface model passes the average
of BHPs from the previous iteration and the current iteration to
the reservoir simulator. In case of rate oscillations, the BHP
may be determined from computing the intersection of the
inflow performance and tubing performance curves.
In the model described by Hepguler15, there is, as for
Trick, a single coupling point per well, but the coupling
location is at the reservoir level, i.e. that the first pressure drop
law at a source node shared with the reservoir simulator
corresponds to an Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR).
Although several types of IPR are implemented in the
surface simulator as in the reservoir simulator, the IPR, used in
the reservoir/surface coupling context, is a linear IPR for each
phase p, global for the well (not for each perforation):
Qp = Ap − Bp BHP ........................................................ (1)
which is handled in the surface simulator as:
Qp = PIp (PB − BHP) , with PB = Ap/Bp , and PIp = Bp (2)
For a coupling location at the reservoir level for a given
well, the reservoir simulator has then to pass the two
coefficients per phase to the network simulator. The ratio
Ap/Bp, used as a pressure boundary condition, and Bp
coefficients are kept constant during the resolution of the
network problem, while the pressure BHP is recalculated. If
the flowing bottom hole pressures calculated by the two
simulators are not within a predefined tolerance, the well rates
calculated by the surface simulator are passed back in a
consistent form to the reservoir simulator as new targets to
redo its time step calculations.
What is not defined precisely in these two former
contributions is the type of conservation law used to ensure the
consistency of flow rates when passed from one simulator to
the other. Volume conservation per phase at bottom hole
conditions is physically meaningful only if the two simulators
reproduce exactly the same phase thermodynamic behavior. In
a Black-Oil context, a common situation is that fluid
properties are defined in tables as functions of pressure in the
input file of the reservoir model while they are calculated from
internal analytical correlation in the network simulator. In such
a situation, passing volumetric rates at bottom hole conditions
from surface to reservoir or vice-versa is not accurate and may
cause trouble to obtain the convergence. What is the most
appropriate in a Black-Oil context is to exchange phase
6 C.C. BARROUX, P. DUCHET-SUCHAUX, P. SAMIER, R. NABIL
volumetric rates at standard conditions since they are
equivalent to component (oil, gas, water) molar rates. In what
follows, whatever the thermodynamic context, it is assumed
that the data exchange conserves the number of moles per
component, a mass conservative law being the only acceptable
alternative.
In the Hepguler description, a first underlying assumption
is that the ratio Ap/Bp is the same for all phases. A second
implication is that each Ap and Bp would not depend on BHP.
If the IPR coefficients depend on BHP, obviously the
coefficients have to be updated by the reservoir simulator at
each iteration needed to reach the convergence at a particular
time step, and the convergence between reservoir and network
solutions may be more difficult to obtain.
Procedures for generating linear IPR coefficients are
described in appendix B. It is shown that linear IPR, at the
well level, and written for molar fluxes, is usable even when
several perforated grid blocks contribute to the well
production. However, when sophisticated options for wellbore
calculations (as implicit fluid densities) are activated in the
reservoir model, the IPR coefficients should depend directly
on BHP, and a reservoir/surface coupling at each Newton
iteration in the reservoir simulation becomes necessary.
In the convergence procedure used by Hepguler, if the flow
rates and flowing bottom hole pressures calculated by the two
simulators are not within a predefined tolerance, the well rates
calculated by the surface simulator are passed back in a
consistent form, for the next iteration, to the reservoir
simulator as new targets to redo its calculations. If there is a
single active perforation in the well, component molar rates
can be introduced directly in the material balance equations of
the perforated grid block. However, if there are several active
perforations, the reservoir simulator has then to allocate the
well rate passed by the surface simulator to the various active
perforations. In this latter case, it appears, from what is
discussed in appendix B, that, when standard wellbore
calculations (explicit fluid densities for calculating hydrostatic
pressure gradients in the well) are used, a better choice should
be to pass to the reservoir simulator the bottom hole pressure
calculated by the surface simulator instead of the rates. This
would require a small development in the reservoir simulator.
About reservoir simulators
Advanced reservoir simulators offer most of the features listed
before except that most of the reservoir software have no open
functionality (for data exchange during the simulation and
controllability from an external process). In addition of the
work required for opening the simulator, some other specific
developments presented hereafter should be necessary for
linking the reservoir simulator with the network simulator at
the well head level and at the trap level.
Given the importance of well pressure and rate constraints
when linking reservoir and surface simulators, a special
attention is first devoted to remind how the wells work in a
reservoir simulator. Other aspects concerning the fluid
representation, and methods for delumping the results of
reservoir simulations (compositional and Black-Oil), are
discussed in a separate section.
SPE 65159
Well boundary conditions and working point
determination
Per well in a reservoir simulator, at least one limiting
pressure condition PLIM (minimum limit for producers,
maximum limit for injectors) , either at the well head or at the
bottom hole, and one maximum rate condition (QMAX:
volumetric rate for a specified phase or group of phases),
either in standard or bottom conditions, have to be fixed by the
user. When several pressure constraints are entered for a same
well, for example one at the bottom level as a mechanical
failure threshold, and one at the well head level, the simulator
retains the most constraining condition. The usual procedure
consists in first calculating well rate using PLIM as boundary
condition. If the calculated well rate does not exceed QMAX,
the effective constraint is PLIM ; in the opposite case, the
QMAX constraint applies.
When the limiting pressure condition is set at well head,
the pressure drop in the well between the well head and a
predefined well datum depth (Zref) has to be represented in
the reservoir simulator, usually through hydraulic look-up
tables. If the oil phase is the reference phase, these tables
reflect the relationship between the flowing bottom hole
pressure (BHP) at Zref, the well head pressure (WHP), the oil
phase rate (standard conditions), for various values of gas-oil
ratio and water-cut.
The determination of well working conditions (or working
point determination) is done only at the beginning of the time
step in the standard situation where the bore hole pressure
gradients (from well datum depth to each active perforation)
are hydrostatic and handled explicitly: the fluid densities used
to calculated the pressure gradients below the datum depth are
estimated using the well flowing pressures of the preceding
time step. The error induced on the flowing pressures in the
well by a bad PLIM estimate is corrected in the further time
steps.
Obviously, the use of hydrostatic pressure gradients below
the well datum depth becomes questionable in cases similar to
case 3, this explaining why a coupling at the trap level is
envisaged in this particular case.
As already stated by Startzman2, bottom hole pressure are
hard to forecast with accuracy. It is why it is very often
preferred to set limiting pressure condition PLIM at well head.
If a producer effective constraint is QMAX, the reservoir
simulator computes a well head pressure (WHP) higher than
PLIM. It means that some kind of well rate regulator is
implicitly represented in the reservoir simulator, the upstream
pressure of which being WHP, and its downstream pressure
being PLIM: this regulating device corresponds to a simplified
representation of a choke, stating that it exists a choke opening
for which QMAX rate is feasible when device upstream and
downstream pressures correspond respectively to WHP and
PLIM. PLIM should then correspond to the pressure (PDOR)
calculated downstream a regulator, put at the well head in a
network simulation. Although not rigorous, this approach is of
particular interest when used in reservoir/surface coupling for
reducing computing time through a partial decoupling of the
simulations, as requested in case 4.
SPE 65159 LINKING RESERVOIR AND SURFACE SIMULATORS: HOW TO IMPROVE THE COUPLED SOLUTIONS
Special requirements for coupling at the well head
For a link at the well head level, a temperature has to be
assigned at the well head since a temperature is one of the
boundary conditions requested at each source point by the
network simulator. The well head temperature is not explicitly
used in a standard reservoir simulator. However, the well head
temperature is usually one of the outputs of the preprocessing
allowing for the generation of look-up tables which are the
standard way, in a reservoir simulator, to handle multiphase
flow in the well bore. Then, the well head temperatures can be
provided as a supplementary column in the look-up tables.
With the implementation of an appropriate interpolation law, it
will allow the reservoir simulator for passing the well head
temperature to the network simulator.
Special requirements for coupling at the trap level
In the situation where a given well produces several traps
(not connected) in commingle, linking the network simulator
with the reservoir simulator at the trap level means that:
- Well tubing hydraulics are not represented in the reservoir
model ;
- Each coupling point in the well has to be identified ; only
one coupling point per trap is envisaged, even if a trap is
connected to the well through more than one perforation.
- A datum depth has to be defined for each trap in the well ;
- The bottom hole pressure at each trap datum depth in the
well has to be calculated ;
- The reservoir simulator will have to calculate IPR
coefficients for each active trap in the well, and to pass
them to the network simulator ;
- Pressure constraints have to be implemented at the level
of each trap ;
- If a given trap is connected to the well through more than
one perforation, the trap molar rate (per component) has
to be computed as the sum of the molar rates of all active
perforated grid blocks belonging to trap ‘t’.
A way to fulfill all these requirements without reservoir
code modification is to declare for a given actual well as many
independent pseudo wells in the reservoir model as the number
of perforated traps in the well. Adoption of such a procedure
in case 3 should result in the introduction of more than 1000
pseudo wells to represent the 80 actual strings.
If traps are produced in commingle, it can occur that the
type (producer, injector) of some pseudo wells has to be
switched from one type to the other, to enable cross-flow
between traps. This means that the pseudo wells,
corresponding to traps potentially in a cross-flow situation,
have to be declared twice, as producer and injector. The
introduction of a non standard well type (with dynamically
reversible well rate) in the reservoir simulator is necessary for
avoiding the pseudo well duplication.
Options for assigning one constant temperature par trap,
one initial gas gravity per trap (in a Black-Oil context) should
be offered to consider temperature and compositional
gradients usually encountered when the range of trap depths is
large. In addition, some kind of compositional tracking should
be useful in particular to follow for gas gravity changes due to
cross-flow between traps.
7
Coupling configurations
For determining the range of application of the configurations
described hereafter, a simple statement is that the simulator
which fixes the well rate condition to the other simulator
handles also the rate allocation strategy. Rate allocation
strategy is typically at the surface level in a predictive context
(using some kind of optimization process external to the
reservoir simulator), at the reservoir level in an ideal history
match context (deterministic approach, assuming known well
rates). The discussion holds for field production modeling,
except when injection problems are mentioned explicitly. In
the reservoir model, it is assumed that the computations of
fluid densities below the well datum are explicit. A coupling at
the level of Newton iterations in the reservoir simulation (way
for accelerating the convergence16), although possible, is not
discussed here.
Configuration 1: coupling at the well head level
Wellbore hydraulics are modeled in the reservoir
simulation only.
In the surface model, each well head is a source point. If no
rate control is represented downstream the source point, the
rate calculated by the reservoir simulator is the boundary
condition fixed to the source point in the surface simulation,
the well head pressure from the reservoir simulator being
possibly used as a first estimate by the surface simulator. For a
producing well, the well head temperature (see the paragraph
'Special requirements for coupling at the trap level') and fluid
composition have also to be fixed. The rates being not
revisable by the surface simulator, the production strategy is
introduced in the reservoir model.
The rates passed to the network simulator can be those
calculated at the beginning of the time step from the well
working point determination in the reservoir simulator.
The network model is solved using the specified rates. The
pressures recalculated at the source points correspond
physically to the well PLIM constraints in the reservoir model
and are named (PDOR) even if the regulator is not explicitly
represented in the surface model. If the pressures (PDOR) are
less, within a user defined tolerance, than the well head
pressures (WHP) calculated by the reservoir model, the
reservoir rates can be considered as feasible. In the opposite
case, the pressures (PDOR) can be passed to the reservoir
simulator to overwrite the PLIM constraints and redo the well
working point calculations, this step being repeated if needed.
Once consistency is obtained, the reservoir simulator can
proceed to the time step calculation. If the rate target of a
given well cannot be sustained for the time step, the well rate
will be computed using the well PLIM constraint. It follows
that overwriting the PLIM constraint with the PDOR value and
recalculate the well working point may be advantageous even
when the rates are found feasible from the first call to the
surface simulator. Recalculating the time step is advisable if
the rates at the end of the time step differ notably from the
rates at the beginning. Cutting the time step may be indicated
in case of strong rate decline.
The interesting feature is that, as long as PDOR (from the
network simulator) are less than WHP (from the reservoir
8 C.C. BARROUX, P. DUCHET-SUCHAUX, P. SAMIER, R. NABIL
simulator), surface and reservoir simulations can be
considered as consistent with no need of further iteration.
Passing PDOR from the surface simulator to the reservoir
simulator to overwrite the PLIM constraint of next time steps
can be used for slacking the coupling equilibration frequency,
noting that a compromise has always to be found between
speed, convergence robustness, and solution accuracy.
Such an approach is close to that of Chevron3,4. The above
description is certainly not optimal during the well decline
period. Computing time savings and rate oscillation remedy
may be obtained using anticipation of the rate and pressure
evolution from the preceding time steps3,5 (or preceding
iterations16) for improving the variable updates exchanged by
the simulators.
Configuration 2: coupling at reservoir level with IPR
overlap
Wellbore hydraulics have to be represented in the surface
model. As IPR is represented in both reservoir and surface
domains, IPR coefficients are part of the data exchange. In
standard reservoir simulations, grid cell temperatures are
constant. The temperatures at the coupling points can then be
fixed in the input file of the surface model, temperature data
exchanges being then unnecessary.
Methods for deriving the coefficients (formulated for
molar flux), when there are several active perforations for a
given well, is given in appendix B. It is shown that, rather than
exchanging the IPR coefficients, an alternate solution
(allowing for compacting the information) consists in passing
one global IPR coefficient (productivity index), one pseudo
'block pressure' (equivalent to the ratio A/B), and molar
fractions describing the global fluid composition, these
quantities being obtained by a rearrangement of the IPR
equations.
Here (see Figure 4), a rate control device (simply
reproducing a QMAX logic similar to that used for well
control in reservoir simulators) is present downstream the well
head in the surface model. A possible algorithm is:
a) At the beginning of the time step, the reservoir simulator
determines the well working points (computation of
component molar rates at each active perforation) using in
particular the QMAX and PLIM constraints and the
flowing pressures from the preceding step to update the
wellbore fluid densities.
b) The IPR parameters (A, B) are computed. The well
reference rate, fluid composition details, IPR parameters
and BHP are passed to the surface simulator.
c) Maximum rate values assigned to the control devices may
be either the calculated well rates from step b) or from the
surface simulation (input data file, optimization process,
..). The principle of surface simulator calculations is first
to compute the well rates using the pseudo block
pressures as boundary conditions at the source nodes, then
to look for honoring the regulator maximum rate for any
well the rate of which is found higher than its maximum
rate constraint. The IPR parameters being the same in
both simulations, the computed bottom hole pressures of a
given well are equal if the rate is constrained at the
SPE 65159
reservoir model rate value by the regulator. At the end of
the surface simulator computations, the recalculated BHP
are passed to the reservoir simulator.
d) The reservoir simulator recalculates the well working
points (using updated BHP), and proceeds to the time step
calculations.
e) Consistency between the rates obtained in steps c) and d)
is checked. If the rates are consistent (within a predefined
tolerance), one can proceed to the next time step. In the
opposite case, calculations are redone from step b).
Such a procedure could be preferable to that described by
Hepguler15, for saving computation time in case of multiple
perforations per well. Whatever the procedure used, the rate
allocation strategy is manageable from the surface simulation
(of particular interest in a predictive context). Drawbacks of
the configuration are the difficulty for entering reasonable
bottom hole PLIM estimates in the reservoir model input file,
and reduced flexibility for slacking the equilibration
frequency. Indeed, forcing, in the reservoir simulation during
the periods where the surface simulator is not coupled, the
wells to work at bottom PLIM supposes the presence of a
bottom hole rate control equipment wells. As it is usually not
the case, the only remaining possibility for controlling the
wells in the reservoir simulation is to force the wells to work
at constant rate, this situation being potentially troublesome in
the rate decline period.
Configuration 3: coupling location at reservoir level with
(well + IPR) overlap
This configuration uses an overlapping domain between
the surface and the subsurface models extended from the IPR
to the well head. A necessary condition is that well hydraulics
are handled in the same way in both simulations, for example
by introducing in the surface simulator the possibility of
representing well hydraulics through the same flow tables as
used by the reservoir simulator (flow tables being
advantageous for saving computation time). The flow tables
have then to include a column for the well head temperature
(see par. 'Configuration 1').
Assuming PLIM constraints fixed at the well head in the
reservoir simulation, the proposed computation algorithm uses
the same steps a) and b) as in the preceding section. In step c),
pressures computed downstream the regulator by the surface
simulator are also passed to the reservoir simulator (to
overwrite the PLIM condition). If the maximum rate values
used at the regulator level have been revised by the surface
simulator for optimizing the rate allocation, these values have
also to be sent (to overwrite the QMAX constraint). In step d)
well working points are determined using the updated PLIM
(and QMAX) constraints. BHP sent by the surface simulator
can be used for processing the wellbore fluid densities needed
in the computation of individual perforation rates. Note that, if
a well switches from a QMAX to a PLIM constraint during the
time step calculations, the use of the PLIM condition updated
from step c) is profitable to the solution consistency. Step e) is
unchanged. Extending the PLIM updates to the next time steps
may allow for loosening the equilibration frequency in a
reasonable way.
SPE 65159 LINKING RESERVOIR AND SURFACE SIMULATORS: HOW TO IMPROVE THE COUPLED SOLUTIONS
Such a configuration offers then the flexibility of choosing
tight and/or loose coupling of independent simulators and is
adequate in both history match and prediction contexts.
Configuration 4: coupling at trap level with IPR overlap
With the procedure proposed in the paragraph 'Special
requirements for coupling at the trap level', configuration 4
becomes a particular case of configuration 2.
The very specific requirement is the reversibility of flow
sign at coupling points, for a switch from a producer status to
an injector status and vice-versa, some developments being
needed in both reservoir and surface simulators as discussed in
former sections and in the appendices. Main modifications in
the step c) of the procedure described for the configuration 2
are: firstly, maximum rate values to assign to the well head
regulators are managed by the surface simulator only,
secondly the surface simulator has to pass the fluid
composition information to the pseudo wells corresponding to
traps in a cross-flow situation.
Fluid representation
Black-Oil (BO) fluid representation has been proven to be of
wide application and to allow for considerable computation
time savings. Fully compositional fluid representation, when
used in the reservoir simulation, is usually limited to a small
number of components (or pseudo components) to keep
acceptable computation time and costs. Using a more detailed
compositional representation (larger number of components)
does not contribute for improving the simulation accuracy in
terms of volumetric flux. The draw back of simplified fluid
representation (BO, or 'coarsely lumped', to refer to
compositional simulations using a small number of
components) is the loose of a detailed compositional
information necessary to the surface process engineering,
particularly when distillation columns are used in the
separation process. A smart solution, of strong interest in the
context of reservoir/surface coupling, has been proposed by
Leibovici23 for restoring a detailed compositional information
from the results of a coarsely lumped compositional
simulation. The method as described in the paper is not
applicable to the delumping of Black-Oil simulations.
However, the extension of this method to the delumping of BO
simulations seems possible (as discussed here after), and
should provide a powerful alternative to the use of correlation
between gas-oil ratio and produced fluid composition, or to the
method proposed by Rowney24. The latter, requiring a lot of
flash operations using the equation of state (EOS) of the
detailed fluid representation, should be too time consuming to
be applicable in the present context.
A flexible coupling in terms of compositional information
should allow for using different fluid representations in
surface and reservoir models. To establish the continuity
between the fluid representations [R] and [S], respectively
used in the reservoir and surface simulations, delumping (D)
and lumping (L) operations can be chained, for example using
the sequences:
(D) (L) (D) (L)
[R] [F] [S] ; [S] [F] [R]
➨ ➨ ➨ ➨
9
[F] being a very detailed fluid representation used as a
reference to build [R] and [S].
In the second sequence, an efficient method for delumping
the surface simulation should be provided, but from our
knowledge no method has yet been proposed. If the fluid
representation [S] is more detailed than the [R] representation,
the remedial consists in delumping [R] representation directly
in the [S] representation.
Another difficulty may arise from the exchange of phase
rates, either to be used in the convergence algorithm, or as a
simulation QMAX type constraint. If both simulations are
compositional, phase rates result from a flash operation using
typically an equation of state. Results of flash operations at
given pressure and temperature, from thermodynamic
packages developed by independent parties, even using a same
EOS, components and compositions, are usually not rigorously
equal. To avoid convergence difficulties, a remedial can
consist in converting, before the exchange between the
simulators, any phase rate in component molar rates, each
simulator (or the interface) having then to put them in the
appropriate form. It is also advisable to check that reservoir
and surface thermodynamic packages have a close behavior.
When a BO context allows for an accurate flux modeling
in both simulations, a much simpler procedure can consist in
delumping the BO reservoir simulation, then passing the
detailed compositions to the surface simulator (in addition to
the BO information). The surface simulator uses its internal
BO thermodynamics to compute the flux, and tracks the
compositions, for example for providing a detailed
compositional information at the separator level.
A method for delumping the BO reservoir simulation25 can
be derived from the Leibovici method which uses, for each
component 'i', the following relationship between its
equilibrium constant ki and its characterization parameters ai
and bi in the Peng-Robinson (PR) EOS:
Ln(ki) = C0 + C1 ai + C2 bi .......................................... (3)
where the C0, C1, C2 coefficients depend only on the phase
parameters, pressure, and temperature. Discussion is restricted
to PR EOS for simplifying the presentation, all other details
being given in the paper 23 and in its references.
Figure 7 illustrates the evolution of these coefficients
during the differential vaporization of a reservoir oil modeled
using PR equation of state.
Fig. 7 – Behavior of C0, C1, C2 coefficients
C0
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Pressure (bar)
10 C.C. BARROUX, P. DUCHET-SUCHAUX, P. SAMIER, R. NABIL SPE 65159

C1 & C2 4. Most of the present proposals for improving the coupled

0.006 solutions require a greater flexibility in reservoir/surface
data exchange, and some software developments. A key
0.004
C2 point is the collaboration of the software industry. We
0.002
hope that our contribution will help this industry to meet
the petroleum industry expectations in the next
0 C1 developments of their products.
Nomenclature
-0.002 a, b : EOS parameter
0 50 100 150 200 250 A, B : IPR coefficients
Pressure (bar) B : phase formation volume factor
In a Black-Oil context, saturated phase thermodynamic c : component molar fraction in p phase
properties, at a given temperature, are entered in the reservoir C : coefficient
simulation file as a function of saturation pressure either using Cp : specific heat at constant pressure
an analytical correlation or a multi entry table. The behavior of BHP : Bottom Hole Pressure at well reference depth
the C coefficients as shown in Figure 7 is smooth enough to g : gravity acceleration
be entered as supplementary columns of the BO multi entry PI : Productivity Index
table (or to be represented by analytical functions). What is IPR : Influx Performance Relationship
then needed for the delumping of a BO simulation is, in a M : phase mobility
preprocessing step with an external PVT package, to match the N : number (of nodes, of moles, ..)
fluid thermodynamic data (used to build the BO conventional Pb : Grid-block pressure
entries) using an equation of state and a detailed fluid PB : Grid-block equivalent pressure
composition. During this preprocessing, the C coefficients PDOR : Choke or regulator downstream pressure
have to be generated (using the procedure detailed by Pf : Well flowing pressure at perforation depth
Leibovici) at each step of the thermodynamic path used to PLIM : Well limiting pressure in the reservoir model
enter the conventional BO data entries. Then, at any time step Q, Q : volumetric, molar rate
of the BO simulation in any grid cell, the C coefficients can be QMAX : maximum rate constraint
estimated from cell thermodynamic conditions and the T : temperature
extended BO tables, and used for computing the equilibrium T : well/grid block transmissibility
constants. The procedure can then follow what is described in WHP : Well Head Pressure
the Leibovici paper, the only point needing some more Z, Zref : depth, reference depth
discussion being the conversion of the phase volumetric flux z : component molar fraction in bulk mixture
into phase molar flux. This requires the determination of phase ξ : phase molar density
molar densities, these quantities being not computed in the BO ρ : phase density
simulation. One way is to compute the phase molar density as Superscripts
the phase density (provided by the Black-Oil simulation) i : component index
divided by the phase molecular weight obtained using the n : node
phase compositions issued from the LSK delumping o, g, w : oil, gas, water component
algorithm26. st : standard
Conclusions Subscripts
1. A detailed analysis of the problem of coupling two b : loop
independent industrial simulators, driven by the survey of c : component
various actual cases for evidencing the industrial needs, is d, u : downstream, upstream link
presented. Several coupling methods are discussed, and e, s, j : source, sink, junction node
the specific requirements for both reservoir and surface k : perforation index
software are described. l : link
2. A configuration using an overlapping domain between the n : node
surface and the subsurface models extended from the IPR p : phase
to the well head appears to be the most convenient for a o, g, w : oil, gas, water phase
use in both, history match and prediction, contexts of sep : separation
studies.
Acknowledgements
3. Reservoir/surface coupling in a compositional context is
The authors thank TotalFinaElf, Gaz de France and Institut
also discussed. Methods of key interest are those enabling
Francais du Petrole for permission to publish this paper. R.
the delumping of the reservoir simulation results ; a
Brousse, G. Coffe, M.C. Duzan, P. Lemetayer, and O. Ricois
procedure for delumping the results of a Black-Oil
are gratefully acknowledged for fruitful discussions.
reservoir simulation is proposed.
SPE 65159 LINKING RESERVOIR AND SURFACE SIMULATORS: HOW TO IMPROVE THE COUPLED SOLUTIONS
References
1. Dempsey, J.R., Patterson J.K., Coats K.H., Brill J.P.: "An
Efficient Model for Evaluating Gas Field Gathering System
Design", SPE 3161, JPT (Sept. 1971) 1067-1073.
2. Startzman, R.A., Brummett, W.M., Ranney, J.C., Emanuel, A.S,
Toronyi, R.M.: "Computer Combines Offshore Facilities and
Reservoir Forecasts ", Petroleum Engineer (May 1977), 65-74.
3. Emanuel, A.S, Ranney, J.C.: "Studies of Offshore Reservoir
With an Interfaced Reservoir/Piping Network Simulator", Trans.
AIME, 271 (JPT, Mars 1981) 399-406.
4. Breaux, E.J. et al.: "Application of Reservoir Simulator
Interfaced with a Surface Facility Network: A Case History",
Trans. AIME, 279 (SPEJ Jun. 1985) 397-404.
5. Mohamed, D.A., Steffensen R.J.: "An Efficient Reservoir-
Coupled Gas-Gathering System Simulator", SPE 8333, SPE 54th
Annual Fall Conf. & Exh., Dallas, Sept. 1979.
6. Stoisits, R.F., Batesole, E.C. et al.: "Application of Nonlinear
Adaptive Modeling of Rigorous Representation of Production
Facilities in Reservoir Simulation", SPE 24898, SPE Annual
Technical Conf., Washington, Oct. 1992, 425-434.
7. Lyons, S.L. et al.:"Integrated Management of Multiple-Reservoir
Field Development", JPT, 47, N° 12 (Dec. 1995), 1075.
8. De Moegen, H., Nabil, R., Lehuen, P., Sonier, F.: "Well-Surface
Connection Control for Gas Reservoir Simulator", SPE 35625,
Gas Technical Conf., Calgary, May 1996.
9. Hooi, H.R., Goobie, L., Cook, R., Choi, J.: "The Integrated Team
Approach to the Optimization of a Mature Gas Field", SPE
26144, SPE Gas Technical Symp., Calgary, June 1993, 73-80.
10. Tingas, J., Frimpong, R., Liou, J.: " Integrated Reservoir and
Surface Network Simulation in Reservoir Management of
Southern North Sea Gas Reservoirs ", SPE 50635, SPE European
Petroleum Conf., The Hague, Netherlands, Oct. 1998, 51.
11. Litvak, M.L. and Darlow B.L.: " Surface Network and Well
Tubinghead Pressure Constraints in Compositional Simulation ",
SPE 29125, 13th SPE Symp. on Reservoir Simulation, San
Antonio, TX, U.S.A., Feb. 1995, 325-336.
12. Litvak, M.L. et al.: "Integration of Prudhoe Bay Surface Pipeline
Network and Full Field Reservoir Models", SPE 38885, SPE
Annual Technical Conf., Oct. 1997, 435-443.
13. Litvak, M.L. and Wang C.H.: " Integrated Reservoir and Surface
Pipeline Network Compositional Simulations ", SPE 48859, SPE
International Oil & Gas Conf. and Exh., Beijing, China, Nov.
1998, 297-305.
14. Trick, M.D. et al.: "Gas Field Deliverability Forecasting: A
Coupled Reservoir Simulator and Surface Facilities Model", CIM
94-62, 45th Annual Conf. of CIM, Calgary, June 1994.
15. Hepguler, F., Barua, S., Bard, W.: "Integration of a Field Surface
and Production Network with a Reservoir Simulator", SPE
38937, SPE Computer Applications (June 1997), 88-93.
16. Trick, M.D.: "A Different Approach to Coupling a Reservoir
Simulator with a Surface Facilities Model", SPE 40001, SPE Gas
Technology Symp., Calgary, March 1998.
17. Nacul, E.C., Lepetre, C., Pedrosa, O.A., Girard, P., and Aziz, K.:
"Efficient Use of Domain Decomposition and Local Grid
Refinement in Reservoir Simulation ", SPE 20741, 65th Annual
SPE Technical Conf. & Exh., New Orleans, 23-26 Sept. 1990
18. Schiozer, D.J, Aziz, K: "Use of Domain Decomposition for
Simultaneous Simulation of Reservoir and Surface Facilities",
SPE 27876, SPE Western Regional Meeting, Long Beach, March
1994, 269-278.
19. Byer, T. J. ,Edwards, M.l G. ,Aziz, K.: " Preconditioned Newton
Methods for Fully Coupled Reservoir and Surface Facility
11
Models", SPE 49001, SPE Annual Technical Conf. and Exh.,
New Orleans, Louisiana, Sept. 1998.
20. Puchyr, P.J.: "A General Gas Reservoir and Gathering System
Simulator", JCPT, 30, N° 3 (May-June 1991) 53-60.
21. Litvak, M.L., Macdonald C.J., Darlow B.L.: " Validation and
Automatic Tuning of Integrated Reservoir and Surface Pipeline
Network Models ", SPE 56621, SPE Annual Technical Conf. and
Exh., Houston, Texas, Oct. 1999, 297-305.
22. Hepguler, F. et al.: "Applications of a Field Surface &
Production Network Simulator with a Reservoir Simulator", SPE
38007, Reservoir Simulation Symp., Dallas, June 1997, 285-286.
23. Leibovici, C. F., Barker, J. W., Wache D. : " Method for
Delumping the Results of Compositional Reservoir Simulation ",
SPE 64001, SPEJ 5 (2), June 2000, p. 227 (from SPE 49068).
24. Rowney, J.D., Clonts M.D.: US Patent N° 5710726.
25. Patent pending.
26. Leibovici, C. F., Stenby, E.H., Knudsen, K.: "A Consistent
Procedure for Pseudo-Component Delumping", Fluid Phase
Equilibria, 1996, 117, 225-232.
27. Osiadacz A.J.: Simulation and Analysis of Gas Networks, Gulf
Publishing Company (1987)
Appendix A : Closure of a network problem
For setting the problem in a simple way, a single connected
network is considered. Its topology is described by nodes and
links. Nodes are either boundary nodes (source, Ne nodes, or
sink, Ns nodes) or junction nodes (Nj nodes). A boundary node
is connected to a single link, this restriction being adopted in
most of the commercial network simulators. A link is an
oriented segment joining two nodes, in which can be
represented a succession of various devices such as flow lines,
compressors, chokes, ..
The total number of nodes is:
Nn = Ne + Ns + Nj .................................................... (A-1)
From the graph theory (see for example ref. 27), it can be
demonstrated that the number of links is given by:
Nl = Nn − 1 + Nb .................................................... (A-2),
Nb being the number of loops in the network.
Another useful relationship is:
Nn Nn
å Ndn = å Nun = Nl ............................................ (A-3),
n=1 n=1
Nd and Nun being respectively the number of downstream
n
and upstream links connected to the node n.
Flow sign in a link may be positive or negative (the link
orientation is not necessarily the flow orientation into the
link). By convention, one sets that at a junction node, at least
one link is oriented towards the node (centripetal link
regarding the node position) and one link is centrifuge.
12 C.C. BARROUX, P. DUCHET-SUCHAUX, P. SAMIER, R. NABIL SPE 65159

The main unknowns are listed in Table A-1 :

Table A-4: Number of unknowns per type
Unknown
Node pressure Nn
Node temperature Nn
Fluid molar composition at node(*) Nn × (Nc – 1)
Temperature at link beginning Nl
Temperature at link end Nl
Link global molar rate Nl
Link global molar composition Nl × (Nc – 1)
(*): Nc, number of components. Closure relationship:
åz = 1 , is used.
i
i pressure gradient along the links ;
As the network is steady-state, there is no possibility of
fluid accumulation in the nodes.
At any standard junction node (no operation of fluid
separation at nodes), the fluid composition is the same in each
downstream link: it results from the component mixing of
fluids arriving from upstream links, mixing being constrained
by mass conservation equations.
In an analogous way, per enthalpy conservation and
assuming that no external energy flux is arriving at node n, the
temperature is the same at the upstream extremity of each
downstream link: the temperature value is the node
temperature ( See Figure A-1).
The system of equations is composed of:
For temperature calculations:
- Nl energy balance equations allowing for calculating
temperature gradient along the links ;
- Nj equations (a1) for enthalpy conservation at each
junction node n ;
- Nn equations (a2) for deriving node temperatures ;
- (Ndn − 1) equations (a3) for constraining the upstream
temperature of downstream links per junction node ;
summing on all junction nodes give a number of
(Nl – Nj – Ne) equations.
Fig. A-1 – Enthalpy equations at node (n)
For composition calculations:
Number - [(Nc − 1) × Nj] equations for component mass
conservation at each junction node ;
- [(Nc − 1) × Nn] equations for relating the bulk fluid
composition at node n and fluid composition in the links
arriving in or leaving the node n
- [(Nc − 1) × (Ndn − 1)] equations for constraining the
composition in the downstream links of the junction node
n ; summing on all junction nodes give a number of
[(Nc − 1) × (Nl – Nj – Ne)] equations.
For pressure/rate calculations:
- Nl pressure drop equations allowing for calculating
- Nj equations for global mass conservation at each junction
node n ;
- Per separator node n with Ndn downstream branches, and
given that there is no accumulation possible in any node,
one has to consider Nsepn supplementary equations
constraining the downstream global molar rates, Nsepn
being equal to (Ndn − 1). For example, a flash operation
for gas/oil separation, fixing the molar liquid and vapor
fractions, constrains the liquid/vapor rate ratio at each
separator exit. Summing on the number of separator nodes
gives the total number of elementary operations of
separation Nsep.
The following table recapitulates, per type of unknown, the
number of unknowns and the number of available equations:
Table A-5: Number of unknowns and equations
Unknown Nbr of Unknowns Nbr of Equations
Temp. 2 × N l + Nn 2 × N l + Nn – N e
Compo. (Nc − 1) × (Nl + Nn) (Nc − 1) × (Nl + Nn – Ne)
Pres./Rate Nn + Nl Nn + Nl + Nsep − Ne − Ns
The difference corresponds to the number of conditions
necessary for the problem closure:

l3 Link orientation Table A-6: Closure conditions

Flow orientation Unknown Number of conditions
Temp. Ne
l5
Node n T° Tn Compo. (Nc − 1) × Ne
n Pres./Rate Ne + Ns − Nsep
Link T° at extremity n
l2 T1 n l1 T1n
l4 It can be noted that the number of loops does not appear in
l2 T2n
l1 the final enumeration.
l3 T3n
As many temperature conditions as the number of source
l4 T4n nodes is requested for the closure of the network problem: it is


$%&

Σ Ql Cpl Tln = 0 (a1) l5 T5n why it is chosen in the network simulators to request for a
! 

l∈n
temperature boundary condition at each source node. In the

$%&

$%&

Σ |Ql | Cpl Tln

l∈n
− Σ |Ql | Cpl
l∈n
Tn = 0 (a2)
(a1)
(a2) Þ(T4n = Tn)
same way, a composition has to be provided by the user at
each source node.
!
!

(a3) To represent one 'two downstream branches' separator in a

T3n = Tn (a3) network problem, neither a pressure nor a rate has to be fixed
SPE 65159 LINKING RESERVOIR AND SURFACE SIMULATORS: HOW TO IMPROVE THE COUPLED SOLUTIONS 13

at one of the boundary nodes. If, as usual in the commercially å Tk æå Mpk ξpk cpikö (Pbk − Pfk)
available network simulators, a pressure (or rate) boundary j∈w
èp ø
condition has to be fixed at each boundary node, then there is zi = ..................... (B-7)
no possibility to represent a separator as a node with two å Tk æå Mpk ξpkö (Pbk − Pfk)
downstream branches. This is why the separator is represented
j∈w
èp ø
as a link device, not as a node device, in such simulators. Note that, for applying these equations in a strict BO
It is also to be noted that this constraint does not exist for a context, one has just to define the phase molar densities from:
transient network problem since accumulation in a node, such
ξsto + Rsk ξstg ξstg ξwst
as a separator node, can be represented. ξok = ; ξgk = ; ξwk = ... (B-8)
Another point is the problem of a change in flow direction Bok Bgk Bwk
at a boundary point declared as a source point, this source and the component molar fractions in each phase as:
point becoming a sink point. At the time of status switch, the
network problem is over constrained, since the number Ne of ξsto Rsk ξsto
cook = g
st ; cok = ; cg = 1 ; cwwk = 1
source points has lost one unit ; it is then necessary to cancel ξsto + Rsk ξ g ξ o + Rsk ξstg gk
st

the temperature and composition conditions at the boundary (B-9)

node where the flow direction is reversed. Such a process is
necessary to allow for handling the cross-flow in the wells.
The enumeration above holds for a given state of the
network, i.e. at fixed choke openings, at fixed rotation speeds
for compressors, pumps, .. The number of degrees of freedom
corresponds to the number of floating regulations in choke
openings, in compressor or pump rotation speeds. The network
problem will have a single solution if one adds a number of
new constraints equal to the number of degrees of freedom. If
the number of additional constraints is smaller, the problem
has multiple solutions, the selection of a particular one being
either deterministic, or from an optimization process.
Appendix B : Generalization of IPR
Using the standard well/reservoir connection, the molar rate of
phase ‘p’ between the grid block ‘k’ (corresponding to the kth
active perforation of the well w) and the well bore is given by:
Qpk = Tk Mpk ξpk (Pbk − Pfk) ......................................(B-1)
Summing on all phases, the molar rate of component 'i' is
given by:
Qik = Tk æå Mpk ξpk cpikö (Pbk − Pfk) ........................(B-2)
èp ø A way for establishing a link with Hepguler method is to
Summing on all active perforations, the molar rate of
component 'i' at the well level is given by:
Qi = å Tk æå Mpk ξpk cpikö (Pbk − Pfk) ....................(B-3)
k∈w
èp ø component (oil, water, gas) molar rates, one can establish the
It can be rewritten as: Qi = Q zi , Q being given by:
Q = A − B BHP .........................................................(B-4)
with:
A = å Tk æå Mpk ξpkö (Pbk − Pfk + BHP) .....................(B-5)
j∈w èp ø condition, and the reservoir/surface coupling can be realized at
B = å Tk æå Mpk ξpkö ....................................................(B-6)
j∈w èp ø implicit fluid densities) are activated in the reservoir model,
and:
The standard way for calculating the quantity (Pfk − BHP),
i.e. the pressure drop between the well datum depth and the
reference depth of the kth active perforation, is to consider only
the hydrostatic pressure gradients (the dynamic pressure drops
are then neglected) ; these are computed from a sum of
(ρhk g ∆Zk) terms in which the bulk phase densities ρhk in the
hole are based on the bottom hole pressure BHP corresponding
to the well working point calculated at the beginning of the
time step.
The thermodynamic conditions, in particular the pressure,
used to compute the phase molar densities are those of the grid
block ‘k’ if the 'k' perforation is producing, and those
prevailing in the well at the perforation depth in the opposite
case. It follows that, in a coupled injection problem, as IPR
coefficients mix variables from both simulations, IPR
overlapping may be of delicate use.
As long as the bulk phase densities are handled explicitly
(no update of (ρhk g ∆Zk) terms during the Newton iterations
of the reservoir simulator, even though BHP values are
revised), and as long as only producing perforations are
considered, A and B do not depend directly on BHP inside a
given time step.
introduce two IPR coefficients per component 'i' as:
Ai = A zi ; Bi = B zi ................................................. (B-10)
Reminding that, in a BO context, phase (oil, water, gas)
volumetric rates at standard conditions are equivalent to
correspondence between the 'phase' IPR coefficients Ap and Bp
used by Hepguler and the 'component' IPR coefficients
introduced here above. The ratio Ai/Bi (≡ A/B), the same for
all the components, is appropriate for use in the network
simulator as an equivalent reservoir pressure boundary
the time step level.
When sophisticated options for wellbore calculations (as
and more particularly when several perforated grid blocks
contribute to the well production, the coupling and update of
the IPR coefficients have to be realized at the Newton iteration
14 C.C. BARROUX, P. DUCHET-SUCHAUX, P. SAMIER, R. NABIL SPE 65159

level, given the dependence of A and B on BHP inside the

time step.
Another method for generating the IPR coefficients is to
use the first order derivatives of component molar rates versus
well bottom hole pressure, calculated in the reservoir simulator
when the wells are handled implicitly in the simulation:

∂Qi ∂Qi
Ai = Qi0 − BHP0 ; Bi = − ........... (B-11)
∂BHP 0
∂BHP 0

This 'tangent IPR' method is more general than the first

presented procedure. It is applicable in particular when non
linear inflow performance relationships are used in the
reservoir simulator, noting that the IPR coefficients update
may be necessary at each Newton iteration.
Usually, for well implicitness, the '∂Q/∂BHP' derivatives
are computed for each well working with a rate constraint, and
not computed for wells working with a pressure constraint.
It is thought to be the reason why, in the coupling approach
described by Trick (where the surface simulator passes bottom
hole pressures to the reservoir simulator), it is chosen, in a
procedure for remedying flow rate oscillations, to compute the
IPR coefficients from a numerical derivation at the interface
level of the '∂Q/∂BHP' quantities, with no mention concerning
the possibility of using IPR coefficients passed from ECLIPSE
to FORGAS. A small development in the reservoir simulator
for a call to the subroutine devoted to the computation of the
'∂Q/∂BHP' derivatives, whatever the type of constraint (rate or
pressure) applied to the wells, would be helpful to the Trick
approach.
To constrain the wells in a reservoir simulation (explicit in
bulk phase density into the well bore), it is more
advantageous, in a coupling context where wells have multiple
perforations, to fix BHP instead of well rate, since, in the first
case, the calculation of the flowing pressures in the tubing at
each perforation depth is done only one time at the beginning
of the time step. Once again, the '∂Q/∂BHP' derivatives, for
determining the 'tangent IPR' coefficients to be passed to the
surface simulator, have to be computed although they are not
to be used by the reservoir simulator for this type of boundary
condition.
The Hepguler approach, where rates computed by the
surface simulator are used for constraining the reservoir
simulation, does not require any modification of the reservoir
simulator (the '∂Q/∂BHP' derivatives are available since used
for the reservoir computations). But it appears to be optimal
only when there is a single active perforation per well: in that
simple case, rate data put in a consistent form can be directly
introduced as source terms in the reservoir model equations.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

bar × 1.0* E+05 = Pa
* Conversion Factor is exact