Quantification of prediction uncertainty using imperfect subsurface models with model error estimation

被引:13
|
作者
Rammay, Muzammil Hussain [1 ]
Elsheikh, Ahmed H. [1 ]
Chen, Yan [2 ]
机构
[1] Heriot Watt Univ, Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland
[2] Total E&P, Geosci Res Ctr, Westhill, Scotland
关键词
Model error (model bias/model discrepancy); History matching (calibration); Error-model; Principle component analysis (PCA); Bayesian inversion; MONTE-CARLO-SIMULATION; RESERVOIR SIMULATOR; FLOW; DECOMPOSITION; CALIBRATION;
D O I
10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.02.056
中图分类号
TU [建筑科学];
学科分类号
0813 ;
摘要
Subsurface reservoirs are far more heterogeneous and complex than the simulation models in terms of scale, assumptions and description. In this work, we address the issue of prediction reliability while calibrating imperfect/low-fidelity reservoir models. The main goal is to avoid over-confident and inaccurate predictions by including a model for the bias terms (i.e. error-model of a predefined form) during the history matching process. Our aim is to obtain unbiased posterior distributions of the physical model parameters and thus improving the prediction capacity of the calibrated low-fidelity reservoir models. We formulate the parameter estimation problem as a joint estimation of the imperfect model parameters and the error-model parameters. The structure of the error-model and the prior distributions of the error-model parameters are evaluated before calibration through analysis of leading sources of the modeling errors. We adopt a Bayesian framework for solving the inverse problem, where we utilize the ensemble smoother with multiple data assimilation (ES-MDA) as a practical history matching algorithm. We provide two test cases, where the impact of typical model errors originating from grid coarsening/upscaling and from utilizing an imperfect geological model description is investigated. For both cases results from the ES-MDA update with and without accounting for model error are compared in terms of estimated physical model parameters, quality of match to historical data and forecasting ability compared to held out data. The test results show that calibration of the imperfect physical model without accounting for model errors results in extreme values of the calibrated model parameters and a biased posterior distribution. With accounting for modeling errors the posterior distribution of the model parameters is less biased (i.e. nearly unbiased) and improved forecasting skills with higher prediction accuracy/reliability is observed. Moreover, the consistency between the different runs of the ES-MDA is improved by including the modeling error component. Although the examples in the paper consider the oil-water system with permeabilities being parameters of the physical model, the developed methodology is general and can be applied to typical ground water hydrology models.
引用
收藏
页码:764 / 783
页数:20
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Effect of heteroscedasticity treatment in residual error models on model calibration and prediction uncertainty estimation
    Sun, Ruochen
    Yuan, Huiling
    Liu, Xiaoli
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY, 2017, 554 : 680 - 692
  • [2] The influence of numerical error on parameter estimation and uncertainty quantification for advective PDE models
    Nardini, John T.
    Bortz, D. M.
    [J]. INVERSE PROBLEMS, 2019, 35 (06)
  • [3] Bayesian Uncertainty Quantification for Subsurface Inversion Using a Multiscale Hierarchical Model
    Mondal, Anirban
    Mallick, Bani
    Efendiev, Yalchin
    Datta-Gupta, Akhil
    [J]. TECHNOMETRICS, 2014, 56 (03) : 381 - 392
  • [4] Generic error model for calibration and uncertainty estimation of hydrological models
    Goetzinger, Jens
    Bardossy, Andras
    [J]. WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, 2008, 44
  • [5] Turboelectric Uncertainty Quantification and Error Estimation in Numerical Modelling
    Alrashed, Mosab
    Nikolaidis, Theoklis
    Pilidis, Pericles
    Jafari, Soheil
    [J]. APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL, 2020, 10 (05):
  • [6] Hourly solar radiation estimation and uncertainty quantification using hybrid models
    Wang, Lunche
    Lu, Yunbo
    Wang, Zhitong
    Li, Huaping
    Zhang, Ming
    [J]. RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS, 2024, 202
  • [7] An uncertainty quantification method for nanomaterial prediction models
    [J]. Vanli, O.A. (avanli@fsu.edu), 1600, Springer London (70): : 1 - 4
  • [8] An uncertainty quantification method for nanomaterial prediction models
    Vanli, O. Arda
    Chen, Li-Jen
    Tsai, Chao-his
    Zhang, Chuck
    Wang, Ben
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY, 2014, 70 (1-4): : 33 - 44
  • [9] An uncertainty quantification method for nanomaterial prediction models
    O. Arda Vanli
    Li-Jen Chen
    Chao-his Tsai
    Chuck Zhang
    Ben Wang
    [J]. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2014, 70 : 33 - 44
  • [10] Local and Global Error Models to Improve Uncertainty Quantification
    Laureline Josset
    Ivan Lunati
    [J]. Mathematical Geosciences, 2013, 45 : 601 - 620