Dear all,
It may be too late to ask this question after submitting the results and with the workshop approaching very soon, but we plan to continue working on our tool from our side.
As you might have noticed during the last presentation, we had some different quantities. Some properties were understandable (like gas density) since the pressure was different due to the way boundary conditions were handled in our case. However, other quantities were completely wrong (such as the liquid phase density and total CO2 mass, which seemed too high). This occurred even though we used the agreed-upon definition of immobile gaseous CO2.
After further investigation, we concluded that the table of results we communicated was different from the outputs of our simulation. We believe the issue may origin from the projection we applied to align with the benchmark description. For this, we used Paraview and the Python calculator function. Since we have limited control over how Paraview processes this projection, we couldn't point what exactly went wrong.
We were wondering how other groups managed this and if anyone else has used Paraview for this task. We would appreciate any insights about this.
Thanks,
Regards.
Sabrine