Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

A deep learning-based surrogate model for seismic data assimilation in fault activation modeling

Published 2 Sep 2024 in math.NA and cs.NA | (2409.01215v2)

Abstract: Assessing the safety and environmental impacts of subsurface resource exploitation and management is critical and requires robust geomechanical modeling. However, uncertainties stemming from model assumptions, intrinsic variability of governing parameters, and data errors challenge the reliability of predictions. In the absence of direct measurements, inverse modeling and stochastic data assimilation methods can offer reliable solutions, but in complex and large-scale settings, the computational expense can become prohibitive. To address these challenges, this paper presents a deep learning-based surrogate model (SurMoDeL) designed for seismic data assimilation in fault activation modeling. The surrogate model leverages neural networks to provide simplified yet accurate representations of complex geophysical systems, enabling faster simulations and analyses essential for uncertainty quantification. The work proposes two different methods to integrate an understanding of fault behavior into the model, thereby enhancing the accuracy of its predictions. The application of the proxy model to integrate seismic data through effective data assimilation techniques efficiently constrains the uncertain parameters, thus bridging the gap between theoretical models and real-world observations.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (40)
  1. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2019.112736
  2. Bottazzi F, Della Rossa E. A Functional Data Analysis Approach to Surrogate Modeling in Reservoir and Geomechanics Uncertainty Quantification. Mathematical Geosciences. 2017;49:517–540. doi: 10.1007/s11004-017-9685-y
  3. doi: 10.3390/a13070156
  4. doi: 10.1007/s10596-021-10062-1
  5. doi: 10.1007/s00477-022-02237-8
  6. Uncertainty Quantification and Inverse Modeling of Fault Poromechanics and Induced Seismicity: Application to a Synthetic Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Problem. All Days of U.S. Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium; 2016.
  7. doi: 10.1007/s10596-019-9815-3
  8. Verde A. Global Sensitivity Analysis of Geomechanical Fractured Reservoir Parameters. 49th U.S. Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, American Rock Mechanics Association. 2015.
  9. doi: 10.1007/s10596-019-09896-7
  10. Cited by: 9doi: 10.1007/s10596-020-09935-8
  11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2013.04.023
  12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2016.09.001
  13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2022.103794
  14. doi: 10.2118/118963-PA
  15. Emerick AA, Reynolds AC. History matching time-lapse seismic data using the ensemble Kalman filter with multiple data assimilations. Computational Geosciences. 2012;16(3):639-659. doi: 10.1007/s10596-012-9275-5
  16. History-Matching Production and Seismic Data in a Real Field Case Using the Ensemble Smoother With Multiple Data Assimilation. All Days of SPE Reservoir Simulation Conference; 2013
  17. Luo X JMNG. Efficient big data assimilation through sparse representation: A 3D benchmark case study in petroleum engineering.. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(7). doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198586
  18. 12th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-12doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.377
  19. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2022.110460
  20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2023.02.023
  21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2023.103873
  22. Kikuchi N, Oden JT. Contact Problems in Elasticity: A Study of Variational Inequalities and Finite Element Methods. Philadelphia, PA, USA: SIAM, 1988
  23. Laursen TA. Computational Contact and Impact Mechanics: Fundamentals of Modeling Interfacial Phenomena in Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2003
  24. Wriggers P. Computational Contact Mechanics. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. 2nd ed., 2006
  25. Simo JC, Hughes TJR. Computational Inelasticity. Springer-Verlag New York, 1998
  26. Bertsekas DP. Constrained Optimization and Lagrange Multiplier Methods. Academic Press New York, 1984.
  27. doi: 10.1002/nme.2069
  28. doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2016.03.032
  29. doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2020.113161
  30. doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2022.114632
  31. doi: 10.1680/geot.11.P.149
  32. doi: 10.1002/2015JB012090
  33. doi: 10.1016/j.gete.2017.12.002
  34. Kanamori H, Anderson D. Theoretical basis of some empirical relations in seismology. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.. 1975;65:1073-1095.
  35. doi: 10.1063/1.1699114
  36. Hastings WK. Monte Carlo Sampling Methods Using Markov Chains and Their Applications. Biometrika. 1970;57(1):97–109.
  37. Chen P. Full-Wave Seismic Data Assimilation: Theoretical Background and Recent Advances. Pure and Applied Geophysics. 2011;168(10):1527-1552. doi: 10.1007/s00024-010-0240-8
  38. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124798
  39. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.01.008
  40. Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

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

Collections

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