1-20 OF 291 RESULTS FOR

COMSOL

Results shown limited to content with bounding coordinates.
Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account

Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Close Modal
Sort by
Series: Geological Society, London, Special Publications
Published: 01 January 2015
DOI: 10.1144/SP406.15
EISBN: 9781862396838
... are also discussed. This contribution focuses on the application of numerical models to assess the applicability of specific dolomitization models/mechanisms in different geological scenarios. We discuss end-member results of flow simulations using the numerical code COMSOL. This software has been chosen...
FIGURES | View All (26)
Image
MoM convergence plot for the <span class="search-highlight">Comsol</span> validation model. The optimal discretiz...
Published: 22 February 2022
Figure A-1. MoM convergence plot for the Comsol validation model. The optimal discretization for this casing-sheet model is N c = 200 and N s = 441 .
Image
(a-c) Layout of the AX tank farm forward models for the <span class="search-highlight">COMSOL</span> LE-ERT model...
Published: 19 November 2021
Figure 4. (a-c) Layout of the AX tank farm forward models for the COMSOL LE-ERT modeling, showing tanks (orange), infrastructure (green), and dry wells (gray) and (d) forward-modeling results showing the electrical field (as voltage) during current transmission on a dry well.
Image
The four‐layer model built with <span class="search-highlight">COMSOL</span> to simulate the triggering mechanism...
Published: 23 February 2021
Figure 3. The four‐layer model built with COMSOL to simulate the triggering mechanisms of the M w  4.6 earthquake. (a) The hydrostatic pore pressure from the transient model before HF starts, which is used as the initial value input for the following time‐dependent study. (b) Model 1
Image
Comparison of total inline electric fields between <span class="search-highlight">COMSOL</span> and MoM for the m...
Published: 09 November 2020
Figure 4. Comparison of total inline electric fields between COMSOL and MoM for the model shown in Figure  3a : (a) the real part of the inline field and (b) the imaginary part. The difference is around 1% except where the real part changes sign and has a very small value.
Image
Comparisons between the DC currents calculated between MoM and the <span class="search-highlight">Comsol</span> f...
Published: 16 February 2018
Figure 5. Comparisons between the DC currents calculated between MoM and the Comsol finite-element approach for a vertical well. The analytical MoM curve represents the pseudoanalytic solution from Tang et al. (2015) , which is valid for the half-space model. The numerical MoM curve represents
Image
Comparisons between the currents calculated between MoM and the <span class="search-highlight">Comsol</span> fini...
Published: 16 February 2018
Figure 6. Comparisons between the currents calculated between MoM and the Comsol finite-element approach for a tilted well. The corresponding background earth models are shown in Figure  4 .
Image
Comparisons between the calculated currents for MoM and the <span class="search-highlight">Comsol</span> finite-e...
Published: 16 February 2018
Figure 7. Comparisons between the calculated currents for MoM and the Comsol finite-element approach for a vertical well in (a) the half-space model, (b) the three-layer model, and (c) the four-layer model. The transmitter is operating at 1 Hz.
Image
Comparisons between the calculated currents for MoM and the <span class="search-highlight">Comsol</span> finite-e...
Published: 16 February 2018
Figure 8. Comparisons between the calculated currents for MoM and the Comsol finite-element approach for a tilted well in (a) the half-space model, (b) the three-layer model, and (c) the four-layer model. The transmitter is operating at 1 Hz.
Image
Comparison between the analytical and <span class="search-highlight">COMSOL</span> 3D forward solutions for a pol...
Published: 03 June 2016
Figure 1. Comparison between the analytical and COMSOL 3D forward solutions for a pole-pole array with 1 m electrode spacing. (left) The first medium has a resistivity of 10    Ω m and (right) the second medium has a resistivity of 500    Ω m . The plain blue line
Image
Optimum fit of the PET tracer distribution (left) with a <span class="search-highlight">Comsol</span> Multiphysic...
Published: 01 August 2015
Fig. 4. Optimum fit of the PET tracer distribution (left) with a Comsol Multiphysics FEM model (right) (scaled in molar concentrations).
Image
The 2D model for comparison with <span class="search-highlight">COMSOL</span>. The dashed line is the trajectory....
Published: 27 March 2015
Figure 8. The 2D model for comparison with COMSOL. The dashed line is the trajectory.
Image
<span class="search-highlight">Comsol</span> model showing the distribution of points used to compute the coarse ...
Published: 07 March 2013
Figure 7. Comsol model showing the distribution of points used to compute the coarse kernel matrix (blue points, 729 positions) and the voltage measurement points (red points, 32 positions). The model geometry includes each of the 10 holes that were drilled into the block (black cylinders
Image
<span class="search-highlight">Comsol</span> geometry used for the fine geometry kernel matrix computations (360 ...
Published: 07 March 2013
Figure 13. Comsol geometry used for the fine geometry kernel matrix computations (360 positions). (a) Finer resolution cylindrical kernel matrix point distribution along with the measurement points used with the genetic algorithm. (b) Close-up of the kernel matrix point distribution.
Image
Comparison of the  x -components of the secondary electric fields between C...
Published: 22 February 2022
Figure 1. Comparison of the x -components of the secondary electric fields between Comsol and MoM. Receivers are located at the surface along the line y  = 0 m. (a) Secondary electric field amplitudes and (b) phases produced by models comprising the casing only, resistive sheet only
Image
(a) Schematic representation of a 100 m long bent horizontal pipeline in a ...
Published: 09 November 2020
. The receiver line is parallel to the x -axis and extends from x  = −1500 m to x  = 3000 m at z  = −18 m. (b) Comparison of current amplitudes obtained with COMSOL and MoM for the model in Figure  3a . The error is less than 3% for all of the points, which is within the limits of differences between COMSOL
Journal Article
Journal: Geophysics
Published: 13 October 2020
Geophysics (2020) 85 (6): E207–E219.
... derived from a commercial finite-element solver, COMSOL-Multiphysics. Furthermore, the efficiency of this method is demonstrated by comparing its computational costs with those of COMSOL. The simulated EM telemetry in a known geologic setting is then compared with a field data example. These comparisons...
FIGURES | View All (17)
Image
The real part of the calculated current in the multicasing model. The Comso...
Published: 16 February 2018
Figure 9. The real part of the calculated current in the multicasing model. The Comsol results include the full modeling with both of the casings, whereas the decoupled casings (no crosswell interactions) and the coupled (with crosswell interactions) are shown for the MoM.
Journal Article
Journal: Geophysics
Published: 16 February 2018
Geophysics (2018) 83 (2): WB81–WB96.
...Figure 5. Comparisons between the DC currents calculated between MoM and the Comsol finite-element approach for a vertical well. The analytical MoM curve represents the pseudoanalytic solution from Tang et al. (2015) , which is valid for the half-space model. The numerical MoM curve represents...
FIGURES | View All (16)
Image
The AT signal of the extra-deep resistivity tool versus the distance to the...
Published: 27 March 2015
Figure 9. The AT signal of the extra-deep resistivity tool versus the distance to the wall. The dots are the COMSOL computations. The cross at 25 m is the computation by the 1D method for the layered model without the wall. For every point, the relative error is given.