4.3 Article

Application of the two-stage Markov chain Monte Carlo method for characterization of fractured reservoirs using a surrogate flow model

期刊

COMPUTATIONAL GEOSCIENCES
卷 15, 期 4, 页码 691-707

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10596-011-9236-4

关键词

Dual porosity; Dual permeability; Markov chain Monte Carlo method

资金

  1. DOE [DE-FE0004832, DE-SC0004982]
  2. Center for Fundamentals of Subsurface Flow of the School of Energy Resources of the University of Wyoming [WYDEQ49811GNTG, WYDEQ49811PER, WYDEQ49811FRTD]
  3. NSF [DMS-1016283]
  4. College of Natural Science at Colorado State University
  5. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  6. Division Of Mathematical Sciences [1016283] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, we develop a procedure for subsurface characterization of a fractured porous medium. The characterization involves sampling from a representation of a fracture's permeability that has been suitably adjusted to the dynamic tracer cut measurement data. We propose to use a type of dual-porosity, dual-permeability model for tracer flow. This model is built into the Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method in which the permeability is sampled. The Bayesian statistical framework is used to set the acceptance criteria of these samples and is enforced through sampling from the posterior distribution of the permeability fields conditioned to dynamic tracer cut data. In order to get a sample from the distribution, we must solve a series of problems which requires a fine-scale solution of the dual model. As direct MCMC is a costly method with the possibility of a low acceptance rate, we introduce a two-stage MCMC alternative which requires a suitable coarse-scale solution method of the dual model. With this filtering process, we are able to decrease our computational time as well as increase the proposal acceptance rate. A number of numerical examples are presented to illustrate the performance of the method.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据